Exploring barriers of household contact screening of index case contacts of pulmonary tuberculosis cases in Sekela district, Amhara region, Ethiopia: 2023; descriptive qualitative study

Mihrete Geremew; Zewudu Dagnaw; Eskezyiaw Agedew; Abiot Aschale; Aysheshim Asnake Abneh; Tadele Derbew Kassie

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0339992

Peer Review History

Original SubmissionSeptember 12, 2025
29 Oct 2025 Decision Letter - Frederick Quinn, Editor Dear Dr. geremew, 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, Frederick Quinn Academic Editor PLOS ONE Journal requirements: When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements. 1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf 2. We noticed you have some minor occurrence of overlapping text with the following previous publication(s), which needs to be addressed: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0233358 In your revision ensure you cite all your sources (including your own works), and quote or rephrase any duplicated text outside the methods section. Further consideration is dependent on these concerns being addressed. 3. 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. 4. 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. 5. 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 move it to the Methods section and delete it from any other section. Please ensure that your ethics statement is included in your manuscript, as the ethics statement entered into the online submission form will not be published alongside your manuscript. 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 (if provided): [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 ******** 2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? -->?> Reviewer #1: N/A ****** 3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available??> The PLOS Data policy Reviewer #1: Yes ****** 4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English??> Reviewer #1: No ****** Reviewer #1: This manuscript addresses an important topic related to tuberculosis (TB) contact investigation and barriers to effective implementation. The study provides valuable qualitative insights from multiple perspectives, including healthcare system, health workers, and patients. Overall, the structure of the Methods and Results sections is appropriate, and the thematic analysis approach is suitable for the research objectives. However, several areas require clarification, consistency, and refinement to improve readability, methodological transparency, and the rigor of reporting. The following specific comments are provided to guide revision. 1. Section 3.1 – Study Area and Period • Add a space in “96627(51%)” → should read “96,627 (51%).” 2. Section 3.3 – Study Participants and Sampling Procedure • Define the abbreviation HEWs at first mention. • Clarify why redundancy was defined by responses from three people (“Redundancy was considered to occur when three people overlap in essence of their responses.”). Explain whether this threshold was based on prior qualitative literature or a team consensus. • Suggested sentence revision for clarity and grammar: “To ensure social representativeness, a range of participants were involved, including the TB Woreda-level coordinator, focal persons, contact cases, and index cases.” 3. Section 3.5 – Data Collection Methods • Define DHIS at first use. • Ensure consistent line spacing throughout this section. • Add space in “23- 42minutes” → should read “23–42 minutes.” • The sentence “Notes were taken at each interview that used as backup file if there were lost or damaged records happened accidentally” needs clarification. Please indicate whether any data loss or damage occurred in this study. • The sentence “It mainly focused on collected data in the ??? and from field notes” appears incomplete — please insert the missing text. • Clarify how observations of facial expressions, reluctance, emphasis, and frustration were incorporated into data interpretation, as these aspects are not reflected in the Results section. • Specify how many times each transcript was read during thematic analysis (“Transcripts were read and reread…”). 4. Section 3.8 – Trustworthiness and Quality Assurance • Correct typographical errors: o “audit trial” → audit trail o “confirm ability” → confirmability • Briefly define member checking and confirmability for readers unfamiliar with these qualitative terms. • Specify how many individuals participated in the peer-review process for data analysis and interpretation (“The data analysis, interpretations, and conclusions were continuously peer reviewed…”). 5. Participant Characteristics (Table 1) • Clarify the educational levels described (avoid abbreviations such as “level 4”). Write them out (e.g., “secondary education,” “college diploma,” etc.). • Correct “where as” → whereas. • Verify missing information for participant C1 (education, marital status, residence, occupation). • Clarify the meaning of “Phase of RX of Ps”—what do “RX” and “Ps” represent? • Remove the religion column if all participants are Christian. • Consider combining the last two columns into one “Notes” column for simplicity. • Avoid abbreviations for participant codes. 6. Thematic Findings (Table 2 and Results Section) • Explain the meaning of “not reviewing” under the subtheme “Health sector–related barriers.” • Please check the consistency between table 2 and results for each category. You should verify that o Every subtheme and illustrative quote in Table 2 appears and is discussed in the Results section. o The wording of categories and subthemes matches exactly (e.g., capitalization, phrasing). o The order of presentation in Table 2 aligns with how themes are described in the text. • Correct page numbering starting from the page containing Table 2. • Revise sentence for clarity: “If the necessary conditions are not fulfilled by the government, performing contact tracing becomes very difficult.” • Correct minor typographical issues: o “This results as ignorance of Tb contact screening.” → “This results in neglect of TB contact screening.” o “house hold” → household o “man power” → manpower o “Up dated” → updated • Format improvements: o Bold subtheme heading: “Lack of commitment” under Theme 2. o Bold full theme headings: � Theme 3: Patient / Index Case and Contact–Related Barriers � Theme 4: Social, Cultural, and Economic–Related Barriers to Contact Screening ****** 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 ******** [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.] To ensure your figures meet our technical requirements, please review our figure guidelines: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/figures You may also use PLOS’s free figure tool, NAAS, to help you prepare publication quality figures: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/figures#loc-tools-for-figure-preparation. NAAS will assess whether your figures meet our technical requirements by comparing each figure against our figure specifications. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0339992.r001
Revision 1
10 Nov 2025 Author Response This is the point by point response to the reviewers Thank you dear reviewers, we have made revision based on your valuable comment. We learn a lot from your comment and if additional comment, we are delightful to revise again. Here are the requested revisions 1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. Response: we revised to comply with PLOS ONE’s formatting and file-naming requirements, following the provided style templates. 2. We noticed you have some minor occurrence of overlapping text with the following previous publication(s), which needs to be addressed: Response: we have revised and paraphrased the manuscript 3. 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. Response: we have made correction on the system 4. 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. Response: we have made based on the recommendation 5. 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 move it to the Methods section and delete it from any other section. Please ensure that your ethics statement is included in your manuscript, as the ethics statement entered into the online submission form will not be published alongside your manuscript. Response: we have removed from the declaration section 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. Response: we have addressed based on their recommendations Review Comments Reviewer #1: This manuscript addresses an important topic related to tuberculosis (TB) contact investigation and barriers to effective implementation. The study provides valuable qualitative insights from multiple perspectives, including healthcare system, health workers, and patients. Overall, the structure of the Methods and Results sections is appropriate, and the thematic analysis approach is suitable for the research objectives. However, several areas require clarification, consistency, and refinement to improve readability, methodological transparency, and the rigor of reporting. The following specific comments are provided to guide revision. 1. Section 3.1Study Area and Period • Add a space in “96627(51%)” → should read “96,627 (51%).” Response: we appreciate this comment and we made correction. 2. Section 3.3 –Study Participants and Sampling Procedure • Define the abbreviation HEWs at first mention. Response: thank you for this, we have first define it as health extension worker • Clarify why redundancy was defined by responses from three people (“Redundancy was considered to occur when three people overlap in essence of their responses.”). Explain whether this threshold was based on prior qualitative literature or a team consensus. • Suggested sentence revision for clarity and grammar: “To ensure social representativeness, a range of participants were involved, including the TB Woreda-level coordinator, focal persons, contact cases, and index cases.” Clarify why redundancy was defined by responses from three people (“Redundancy was considered to occur when three people overlap in essence of their responses.”). Explain whether this threshold was based on prior qualitative literature or a team consensus. Response: we corrected the grammar and accepted the given comment. For “Redundancy was considered to occur when three people overlap in essence of their responses”. Explain whether this threshold was based on prior qualitative literature or a team consensus.” We decide this as team consensus based on previous literature 3. Section 3.5 – Data Collection Methods • Define DHIS at first use. • Ensure consistent line spacing throughout this section. • Add space in “23- 42minutes” → should read “23–42 minutes.” Response: we accept the comment • The sentence “Notes were taken at each interview that used as backup file if there were lost or damaged records happened accidentally” needs clarification. Please indicate whether any data loss or damage occurred in this study. Response: there was no lost file in this study, we detail explained in the manuscript as Notes were taken during each interview and used as backup records in case of accidental data loss or damage; however, no data loss or damage occurred during this study. • The sentence “It mainly focused on collected data in the ??? and from field notes” appear incomplete — please insert the missing text. Response: we inserted the missed word in the document Clarify how observations of facial expressions, reluctance, emphasis, and frustration were incorporated into data interpretation, as these aspects are not reflected in the Results section. Response: we appreciated this helpful suggestion and we have made correction as. Nonverbal cues, including facial expressions, tone, and signs of hesitation or frustration, were noted to contextualize responses and guide interpretation, though not all are reported verbatim in the Results. • Specify how many times each transcript was read during thematic analysis (“Transcripts were read and reread…”). Response: we have made revision based on this concept 4. Section 3.8 – Trustworthiness and Quality Assurance • Correct typographical errors: o “audit trial” → audit trail o “confirm ability” → confirmability c we have accepted this suggestion and made revision, thank you very much!! • Briefly define member checking and confirmability for readers unfamiliar with these qualitative terms. Response: We briefly explained this on the manuscript in bracket • Specify how many individuals participated in the peer-review process for data analysis and interpretation (“The data analysis, interpretations, and conclusions were continuously peer reviewed…”). Response: thank you we add three colleagues were participated in peer review 5. Participant Characteristics (Table 1) • Clarify the educational levels described (avoid abbreviations such as “level 4”). Write them out (e.g., “secondary education,” “college diploma,” etc.). Response: thank you very much we have made correction • Correct “where as” → whereas. • Verify missing information for participant C1 (education, marital status, residence, occupation). Response: yes we missed and we add the missed • Clarify the meaning of “Phase of RX of Ps”—what do “RX” and “Ps” represent? Response: Rx=treatment and pts=patients we fully explained in the document • Remove the religion column if all participants are Christian. • Consider combining the last two columns into one “Notes” column for simplicity. Response: Since merging and labeling “Notes” may confuse readers we merged and replaced with phase of treatment and number of contacts respectively • Avoid abbreviations for participant codes. Response: thank you we avoided the abbreviations and wrote in full form 6. Thematic Findings (Table 2 and Results Section) • Explain the meaning of “not reviewing” under the subtheme “Health sector–related barriers.” Response: thank you it is to mean not reviewing mean not undertaking review meeting • Please check the consistency between table 2 and results for each category. You should verify that o Every subtheme and illustrative quote in Table 2 appears and is discussed in the Results section. Response: thank you very much we made correction; there were ordering problem in the table and result section o The wording of categories and subthemes matches exactly (e.g., capitalization, phrasing). Response: we separteded themes and subthemes o The order of presentation in Table 2 aligns with how themes are described in the text. • Correct page numbering starting from the page containing Table 2. Response: We revised based on the comment, thank you • Revise sentence for clarity: “If the necessary conditions are not fulfilled by the government, performing contact tracing becomes very difficult.” Response: we appreciated the comment we took it • Correct minor typographical issues: o “This results as ignorance of Tb contact screening.” → “This results in neglect of TB contact screening” Response: we have great for such type of insightful review, we took it o “house hold” → household o “man power” → manpower o “Up dated” → updated Response: we corrected these typographical issues: • Format improvements: o Bold subtheme heading: “Lack of commitment” under Theme 2. o Bold full theme headings: Response: we have made correction on it � Theme 3: Patient / Index Case and Contact–Related Barriers � Theme 4: Social, Cultural, and Economic–Related Barriers to Contact Screening Response: we have great appreciation for this valuable comment; we have made correction based on the recommended suggestions. Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0339992.r002
26 Nov 2025 Decision Letter - Frederick Quinn, Editor Dear Dr. geremew, 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 Jan 10 2026 11:59PM. If you will need significantly more time 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, Frederick Quinn 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. [Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.] Reviewers' comments: Reviewer's Responses to Questions Comments to the Author Reviewer #1: (No Response) ******** 2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions??> Reviewer #1: Yes ****** 3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? -->?> Reviewer #1: N/A ****** 4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available??> The PLOS Data policy Reviewer #1: Yes ****** 5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English??> Reviewer #1: Yes ****** Reviewer #1: 1. The order of "Categories" in Table 2 should align with the order of terms (e.g. . Lack of Human power, Lack of adequate budget, Lack of training ...) are discussed in the text. 2. Check typo carefully. For example "Land scape", "Tb officer". 3. This sentence "To ensure social representativeness, a range of participants were involved, including the TB Woreda-level coordinator, focal persons, contact cases, and index cases" appeared twice. ****** 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 ******** [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.] To ensure your figures meet our technical requirements, please review our figure guidelines: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/figures You may also use PLOS’s free figure tool, NAAS, to help you prepare publication quality figures: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/figures#loc-tools-for-figure-preparation. NAAS will assess whether your figures meet our technical requirements by comparing each figure against our figure specifications. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0339992.r003
Revision 2
27 Nov 2025 Author Response We would like to appreciate your effort to made correction for this paper and here are my responses to the given comments Reviewer: 1. The order of "Categories" in Table 2 should align with the order of terms (e.g. . Lack of Human power, Lack of adequate budget, Lack of training ...) are discussed in the text. Response: we would like to say thank you and we made previously mistake on it. We saw these in detail and made correction. The orders and consistent use of words/ phrases in table 2 and discussed was made. Thank you again!! 2. Check typo carefully. For example "Land scape", "Tb officer" Response : thank you for your insightful view, suggestion, comment and your time to see the typo problems in detailed; we made corrections of these and others in the manuscript. 3. This sentence "To ensure social representativeness, a range of participants were involved, including the TB Woreda-level coordinator, focal persons, contact cases, and index cases" appeared twice. Response: yes there was problem of repeating this sentences twice, we removed the repetition and made correction. Thank you very much!! Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: point -by- point response.pdf https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0339992.r004
15 Dec 2025 Decision Letter - Frederick Quinn, Editor Exploring barriers of household contact screening of index case contacts of pulmonary tuberculosis cases in Sekela district, Amhara region, Ethiopia: 2023; descriptive qualitative study PONE-D-25-44938R2 Dear Dr. Geremew, 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, Frederick Quinn Academic Editor PLOS One Additional Editor Comments (optional): Reviewers' comments: Reviewer's Responses to Questions Comments to the Author Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed ******** 2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions??> Reviewer #1: Yes ****** 3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? -->?> Reviewer #1: N/A ****** 4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available??> The PLOS Data policy Reviewer #1: Yes ****** 5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English??> Reviewer #1: Yes ****** Reviewer #1: (No Response) ****** what does this mean? ). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files. If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public. Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy Reviewer #1: No ******** https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0339992.r005
Formally Accepted
Acceptance Letter - Frederick Quinn, Editor PONE-D-25-44938R2 PLOS One Dear Dr. Geremew, 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. Frederick Quinn Academic Editor PLOS One https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0339992.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 .