Intended and experienced literacy practices in a Swedish undergraduate nursing education

Maria Christidis; Nikolaos Christidis; Viveca Lindberg; Kristina Gottberg; Carina Georg

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0335166

Peer Review History

Original SubmissionJune 18, 2025
13 Aug 2025 Decision Letter - Olugbenga Ige, Editor Dear Dr. Christidis, 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. ============================== ACADEMIC EDITOR: To further enhance the study, consider: Consider clarifying the sample and analysis methods for flow Assessing students' literacy skills: Incorporate objective evaluations of students' literacy skills to offer a more thorough insight into their capabilities. Exploring the impact on patient care: Examine how the incorporation of academic and professional literacy practices in nursing education influences patient care and outcomes. Longitudinal design: Contemplate a longitudinal approach to investigate how students' literacy practices develop throughout their nursing education and into their professional lives. Key Recommendations: The language can be tightened for clarity and conciseness; some sentences are long and complex Break up long sentences and clarify definitions early in the text. Standardise terminology and proofread for typos and formatting issues. Reformat tables and ensure all data is clearly presented. Streamline the discussion to focus on the most important findings and their implications for nursing education. Make recommendations for curriculum development more direct and actionable in the conclusion Overall Comment: The manuscript is a valuable contribution to the field of nursing education. Furthermore, it presents original and relevant research, conducted and reported to a high standard. With minor revisions for language, formatting, and a stronger focus on practical implications, it will make a valuable contribution to the literature on literacy practices in nursing education and is suitable for publication. Some potential areas for future research include: Evidence-Based Practice education: Analysing the effectiveness of evidence-based practice education programs in improving nursing students' literacy skills and competencies. Customisable Education Programs: Creating tailored educational programs that address diverse learning needs and encourage the integration of academic and professional literacy practices. Interprofessional Collaboration: Exploring the role of literacy practices in promoting interprofessional collaboration. Please submit your revised manuscript by Sep 27 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, Olugbenga Ige 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 ensure that you have specified a) Did participants provide their written or verbal informed consent to participate in this study? b) If consent was verbal, please explain i) why written consent was not obtained, ii) how you documented participant consent, and iii) whether the ethics committees/IRB approved this consent procedure. 3. In consent please state in Ethics Method section and manuscript if it is written or verbal. If consent was verbal, please explain a) why written consent was not obtained, b) how you documented participant consent, and c) whether the ethics committees/IRB approved this consent procedure. 4. Your ethics statement should only appear in the Methods section of your manuscript. If your ethics statement is written in any section besides the Methods, please delete it from any other section. 5. We note that your Data Availability Statement is currently as follows: [All relevant data are within the manuscript and its Supporting Information files and can be obtained from the authors] 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. 6. 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. Additional Editor Comments: I have reviewed the reports submitted by the reviewers appointed to evaluate the research manuscript, and I am strongly convinced that the appropriate option is to request the author to make major revisions to the research manuscript. The report submitted by Reviewer 2 was comprehensive enough to confirm my decision. The author should address all the comments made in the report submitted, or provide a rebuttal where such revisions are no longer possible, to enable a re-evaluation of the research manuscript. [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: Partly ******** 2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? -->?> Reviewer #1: Yes 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: The paper was academically sound. The conclusion was drawn from the data provided from the results. The statistical analysis in table 2 was performed correctly. The manuscript was written in standard English. Reviewer #2: Your manuscript explores the integration of academic and professional literacy practices in a Swedish undergraduate nursing program, combining curriculum analysis with a student survey on note-taking. The objectives of the study are clearly articulated, address a relevant gap, and employ an appropriate methodology. The language utilised is straightforward, though with minor errors, making the study accessible and comprehensible. Nevertheless, the results fail to specify the extent, in numerical terms, to which participants demonstrate their ability to apply academic literacy, which is essential for evaluating the study's success. This data would undoubtedly provide the reader with a clearer understanding of the success rate of the literacy test conducted. To better grasp the findings, it would be beneficial to have precise definitions of academic and professional literacy. Potential bias in student responses is noted: The response rate for the digital questionnaire was 40%, which may introduce bias if the characteristics or literacy practices of the responding students differ from those of non-responding students. To further enhance the study, consider: � Consider clarifying the sample and analysis methods for flow � Assessing students' literacy skills: Incorporate objective evaluations of students' literacy skills to offer a more thorough insight into their capabilities. � Exploring the impact on patient care: Examine how the incorporation of academic and professional literacy practices in nursing education influences patient care and outcomes. � Longitudinal design: Contemplate a longitudinal approach to investigate how students' literacy practices develop throughout their nursing education and into their professional lives. Key Recommendations: � The language can be tightened for clarity and conciseness; some sentences are long and complex � Break up long sentences and clarify definitions early in the text. � Standardise terminology and proofread for typos and formatting issues. � Reformat tables and ensure all data is clearly presented. � Streamline the discussion to focus on the most important findings and their implications for nursing education. � Make recommendations for curriculum development more direct and actionable in the conclusion Overall Comment: The manuscript is a valuable contribution to the field of nursing education. Furthermore, it presents original and relevant research, conducted and reported to a high standard. With minor revisions for language, formatting, and a stronger focus on practical implications, it will make a valuable contribution to the literature on literacy practices in nursing education and is suitable for publication. Some potential areas for future research include: � Evidence-Based Practice education: Analysing the effectiveness of evidence-based practice education programs in improving nursing students' literacy skills and competencies. � Customizable Education Programs: Creating tailored educational programs that address diverse learning needs and encourage the integration of academic and professional literacy practices. � Interprofessional Collaboration: Exploring the role of literacy practices in promoting interprofessional collaboration. ****** 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: Florence Fezeka Mafisa ******** [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. Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Review ReportPKreviewed290725.pdf Attachment Submitted filename: PONE-D-25-32643_reviewer _11082025.docx Attachment Submitted filename: Key Recommendations.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0335166.r001
Revision 1
15 Sep 2025 Author Response Response to reviewers: Intended and experienced literacy practices in a Swedish undergraduate nursing education. Dear Academic Editor, Thank you for considering this manuscript for publication. We would like to thank the reviewers and you for the comments and suggested changes in order to improve the quality of this manuscript. The changes are highlighted with track changes. We hope that this reply and changes in the manuscript are sufficient and will answer your queries. Maria Christidis 2025-08-24 Reviewer questions and replies: Reviewer 1: The paper was academically sound. The conclusion was drawn from the data provided from the results. The statistical analysis in table 2 was performed correctly. The manuscript was written in standard English. Reply: Thank you for this feedback. Reviewer 2 and academic editor: Your manuscript explores the integration of academic and professional literacy practices in a Swedish undergraduate nursing program, combining curriculum analysis with a student survey on note-taking. The objectives of the study are clearly articulated, address a relevant gap, and employ an appropriate methodology. The language utilised is straightforward, though with minor errors, making the study accessible and comprehensible. Reply: Thank you for this feedback. The language has been adjusted where necessary. Nevertheless, the results fail to specify the extent, in numerical terms, to which participants demonstrate their ability to apply academic literacy, which is essential for evaluating the study's success. This data would undoubtedly provide the reader with a clearer understanding of the success rate of the literacy test conducted. Reply: Thank you for your comment. This must be a misunderstanding. The aim of this study was the following: “Thus, the aim of this study was to analyze one of the Swedish undergraduate nursing programmes, with respect to possible content of relevance for academic and professional literacy. Secondarily, to describe note-taking as an aspect of literacy practices, from the perspective of nursing students” (see line 151-154). Also, “A questionnaire was developed to gather information on students' note-taking as an aspect of literacy practices during their education” (see line 294-295). In order to clarify this we changed the wording from “gather information on…” to “map students’…”. To better grasp the findings, it would be beneficial to have precise definitions of academic and professional literacy. Reply: Thank you. Academic literacy has been described on line 64-67 and we have made a small clarifying addition in the end of the sentence: “Here. academic literacy refers to differences in what people read and write, how they do it and for what purposes (why). These practices vary across social contexts, including disciplines and related programmes (1-3).” However, we have added to the description of professional literacy on line 107-11: Professional literacy involves questions such as: what kinds of texts are typical and recurring within a specific profession? What are characteristic features (content and form) of these texts? What are the purposes of these texts? The answers to these questions differ between professions (on engineers’ professional writing (14)).” Potential bias in student responses is noted: The response rate for the digital questionnaire was 40%, which may introduce bias if the characteristics or literacy practices of the responding students differ from those of non-responding students. Reply: Thank you. This has been addressed in the following lines: See line 570-571: “The response rate of the questionnaire was relatively small (40%) despite reminders. The small sample (n<100) allows us only to regard the quantitative result as indications”. Also, on line 580: “Thus, the results must be interpreted with caution”. To further enhance the study, consider: � Consider clarifying the sample and analysis methods for flow Reply: Thank you. This has been clarified in the analytical methods section we have written a complementary clarification of descriptive statistics. However, since the data was a survey for mapping students literacy practices, not a test (clarified as previously described), other desciptives than frequency distributions are not relevant – see lines 312, 345-346 “For closed questions frequency distribution was used, complemented with mean and range for age (38), while for the open-ended questions, a qualitative content analysis (39) was applied to analyze and describe the results on literacy practices.“ � Assessing students' literacy skills: Incorporate objective evaluations of students' literacy skills to offer a more thorough insight into their capabilities. Reply: Thank you. This is a misunderstanding, see previous comment: The aim of this study was the following: “Thus, the aim of this study was to analyze one of the Swedish undergraduate nursing programmes, with respect to possible content of relevance for academic and professional literacy. Secondarily, to describe note-taking as an aspect of literacy practices, from the perspective of nursing students” (see line 152-155). Also, “A questionnaire was developed to map students' note-taking as an aspect of literacy practices during their education” (see line 295-296). In order to clarify this we changed the wording from “gather information on…” to “map students’…”. � Exploring the impact on patient care: Examine how the incorporation of academic and professional literacy practices in nursing education influences patient care and outcomes. Reply: Thank you. We have indications and can strengthen these indications by complementing the introduction concerning previous research (see line 124-137) � Longitudinal design: Contemplate a longitudinal approach to investigate how students' literacy practices develop throughout their nursing education and into their professional lives. Reply: Thank you. This is the first part of a longitudinal project. Subsequently literacy in the nursing programme will be further explored in later semesters. This is in line with our previous project concerning literacy in the dental programme, where various aspects of literacy have been explored in terms of students’ clinical notes and students’ notes from lectures, as well as interviews with students • Lindberg, V., Jounger, S. L., Christidis, M., & Christidis, N. (2020). Characteristics of dental note taking: a material based themed analysis of Swedish dental students. BMC Medical Education, 20(1), 511. • Lindberg, V., Jounger, S. L., Christidis, M., & Christidis, N. (2021). Literacy as part of professional knowing in a Swedish dental education. BMC Medical Education, 21(1), 373. • Christidis, N., Lindberg, V., Jounger, S. L., & Christidis, M. (2022). Early steps towards professional clinical note-taking in a Swedish study programme in dentistry. BMC Medical Education, 22(1), 676. • Christidis, N., Lindberg, V., Helo, H., Koj, S., & Christidis, M. (2023). Swedish dental students’ clinical notes and reflections as part of a case-based examination–challenges for undergraduate education. Medical Research Archives, 11(10). • Christidis, N., Tomasson, J., Rataghi, A., & Christidis, M. (2024). Preparation of dental and nursing professionals within Swedish higher education: navigating to confidence in literacies and professional knowledge. BMC Medical Education, 24(1), 1426. Key Recommendations: � The language can be tightened for clarity and conciseness; some sentences are long and complex � Break up long sentences and clarify definitions early in the text. � Standardise terminology and proofread for typos and formatting issues. Reply: Thank you, this has been adjusted accordingly. � Reformat tables and ensure all data is clearly presented. Reply: Thank you. The tables have been adjusted to more clearly present the results. � Streamline the discussion to focus on the most important findings and their implications for nursing education. Reply: Thank you. The discussion has been adjusted and streamlined � Make recommendations for curriculum development more direct and actionable in the conclusion Reply: Thank you. This has been added in line 618-620, and in line 624-626 in order to highlight the need we see today (it is in bold text here to make it easier to identify) “Thus, students must cope with three distinct literacy practices, each with its own norms for reading and writing (what to read and write, how to read and write, as well as for what purposes), today often without guidance” together with the following part “Taken together, this study highlights the necessity for clearer integration and explicit teaching of both literacy types to prepare students effectively for academic success and professional nursing practice, where the purpose of documentation (aspect of professional literacy practices) is to communicate both with other health care professions as well as patients and their relatives.” Overall Comment: The manuscript is a valuable contribution to the field of nursing education. Furthermore, it presents original and relevant research, conducted and reported to a high standard. With minor revisions for language, formatting, and a stronger focus on practical implications, it will make a valuable contribution to the literature on literacy practices in nursing education and is suitable for publication. Reply: Thank you for this feedback. Some potential areas for future research include: � Evidence-Based Practice education: Analysing the effectiveness of evidence-based practice education programs in improving nursing students' literacy skills and competencies. � Customizable Education Programs: Creating tailored educational programs that address diverse learning needs and encourage the integration of academic and professional literacy practices. � Interprofessional Collaboration: Exploring the role of literacy practices in promoting interprofessional collaboration. Reply: Thank you for this feedback. We completely agree, and that is our plan, therefore we have added a part on interprofessional collaboration and growing concerns with documentation and patient safety (lines 585-590) but also regarding the development of teaching and nursing programmes on line 606. Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Response to reviewers.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0335166.r002
22 Sep 2025 Decision Letter - Olugbenga Ige, Editor Dear Dr. Christidis, 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 Nov 06 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, Olugbenga Ige Academic Editor PLOS ONE Journal Requirements: 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. 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. Additional Editor Comments: The authors should highlight all changes to the research manuscript in green. The amendments in "Response to Reviewers" are hard to identify without highlighting these changes. [Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.] [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.0335166.r003
Revision 2
24 Sep 2025 Author Response The changes in the manuscript are now highlighted i green and the "Response to reviewers" has been updated with new line-numbers since they were changed when I removed the "track-changes function from MS Word". I hope it is more clear now. Best Maria Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Response_to_reviewers_auresp_2.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0335166.r004
7 Oct 2025 Decision Letter - Olugbenga Ige, Editor Intended and experienced literacy practices in a Swedish undergraduate nursing education PONE-D-25-32643R2 Dear Dr. Christidis, 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, Olugbenga Ige, PhD Academic Editor PLOS ONE Additional Editor Comments (optional): Reviewers' comments: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0335166.r005
Formally Accepted
Acceptance Letter - Olugbenga Ige, Editor PONE-D-25-32643R2 PLOS ONE Dear Dr. Christidis, 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. Olugbenga Ige Academic Editor PLOS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0335166.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 .