https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6206-0226
Peer Review History
| Original SubmissionJanuary 12, 2026 |
|---|
|
-->PONE-D-26-00796-->-->A novel application tunnel in combination with medical training reduces stress induced by frequent intraperitoneal injections and blood sampling in mice-->-->PLOS One Dear Dr. Hammerich, 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 see the detailed comments given by the two independent reviewers below. Please submit your revised manuscript by Mar 29 2026 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file. Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:-->
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, I Anna S Olsson, Ph.D. 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 2. To comply with PLOS One submissions requirements, in your Methods section, please provide additional information regarding the experiments involving animals and ensure you have included details on (1) methods of sacrifice, (2) methods of anesthesia and/or analgesia, and (3) efforts to alleviate suffering. 3. When completing the data availability statement of the submission form, you indicated that you will make your data available on acceptance. We strongly recommend all authors decide on a data sharing plan before acceptance, as the process can be lengthy and hold up publication timelines. Please note that, though access restrictions are acceptable now, your entire data will need to be made freely accessible if your manuscript is accepted for publication. This policy applies to all data except where public deposition would breach compliance with the protocol approved by your research ethics board. If you are unable to adhere to our open data policy, please kindly revise your statement to explain your reasoning and we will seek the editor's input on an exemption. Please be assured that, once you have provided your new statement, the assessment of your exemption will not hold up the peer review process. 4. In the online submission form you indicate that your data is not available for proprietary reasons and have provided a contact point for accessing this data. Please note that your current contact point is a co-author on this manuscript. According to our Data Policy, the contact point must not be an author on the manuscript and must be an institutional contact, ideally not an individual. Please revise your data statement to a non-author institutional point of contact, such as a data access or ethics committee, and send this to us via return email. Please also include contact information for the third party organization, and please include the full citation of where the data can be found. 5. We note you have included a table to which you do not refer in the text of your manuscript. Please ensure that you refer to Table 3 in your text; if accepted, production will need this reference to link the reader to the Table. 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. [Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.] Reviewers' comments: Reviewer's Responses to Questions -->Comments to the Author 1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions? The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented. --> Reviewer #1: No Reviewer #2: Partly ********** -->2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? --> Reviewer #1: No Reviewer #2: I Don't Know ********** -->3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available? The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.--> Reviewer #1: No Reviewer #2: Yes ********** -->4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English? PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.--> Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ********** -->5. Review Comments to the Author Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)--> Reviewer #1: The authors report on a novel tunnel designed for routine applications (injections and blood draws) that can reduce handling stress. I have some concerns regarding statistical analyses. 1. The authors correctly use cage as the experimental unit by averaging measurements within cages (avoiding pseudoreplication), however, the sample sizes appear quite small (N=3-8 cages per group) with unequal group sizes. The authors state they used the Shapiro-Wilk test to determine whether to use parametric or non-parametric tests. Shapiro-Wilk test has low power to check for normality when sample size is small. With small sample sizes across the study (<10), non-parametric alternatives should be used by default. 2. All statistical results should be clearly reported in the Results section. Given the small sample sizes, it would be better to focus on effect sizes and confidence intervals for interpreting the biological significance of results. 3. According to Table 1, the number of cages per treatment group ranged from 2 to 6, and the number of mice per cage was also highly variable (from 1 to 6). So, for example, looking at Table 1, measures for corticosterone were taken from a singly housed mouse in C1, and averaged from 5 mice in cage C6. When cage means are calculated from different numbers of mice, each cage mean will probably have different variance. I am not sure treating a single mouse is equivalent to the mean of 5 or 6 mice. ANOVA and t-tests assume equal variance across groups, which is probably violated here. 4. Line 298-301 – the authors report that because animals were tested individually after injections, individual mice were treated as individual units for statistical analysis. Mice from the same home-cage should not be treated as independent even if they were tested individually. Experimental unit should be cage. Mixed models can be used for analysis, where mouse nested in cage is used as a random factor. 5. I have an additional question about voluntary interaction measurements. The authors measure latency to approach the experimenter’s hand. The literature that they cite (Henderson et al 2020, Gouveia et al 2013), that also conducted voluntary interaction tests however, measure differences in interaction time (% time spent interacting with the experimenter’s hand during 60s). Can the authors explain why they used a different metric here (latency to start interacting) as the papers they cited? Also, in the first part of the experiment you measure latency to interact in group housed mice, but in the second experiment you measure it on each individual mouse before it was placed back in the home cage. I don’t think either method is better, but the difference in measuring interaction should be more explicitly stated in the discussion as it could have affected the results. Some additional minor points: Abstract: the strain and sex of animals tested should be mentioned in the abstract. Line 57: It should be clearly stated that the latency to interact with experimenter decreased for both treatment groups, or there was no treatment effect. Line 58: Change “normal behaviour” to “normal activity levels” as you did not measure behaviour but activity (as mentioned in Results, line: 434). Line 55: The authors mention that body surface temperature was measured, but the result is not mentioned in the abstract. All outcome measures that were assessed should be mentioned in the abstract. Lines 119-128: this paragraph should go at the beginning of the discussion. Line 141: It is not clear from the times stated (4pm and 7pm) if experiments were conducted during the light or dark phase. Reviewer #2: Schlutt and colleagues propose a refinement strategy for intraperitoneal injections and blood sampling based on the use of a tunnel in combination with a training protocol. The manuscript addresses an important issue in the context of the 3Rs by proposing a refined strategy for routine procedures in animal facilities. As such, I consider it to be an important addition to the knowledge base on the 3Rs. Nevertheless, there are several errors and points that require clarification. Specific comments on the different sections are provided below. ________________________________________ Introduction • On lines 87–88, the authors refer to a “higher risk of painful mistakes due to wrong restraining or application.” Please clarify what is meant by these “painful mistakes.” • Throughout the manuscript, the term “medical training” is used to describe the training protocol/program. I suggest using a different term, as this wording may be misleading. • On line 117 and in most of the manuscript, the term “blood draws” is used, whereas the title uses “blood sampling.” I recommend standardizing the terminology throughout the manuscript. • The Introduction would benefit from a more thorough review of previously developed refinement methodologies for substance administration in laboratory mice. ________________________________________ Materials & Methods There is a recurrent lack of detailed information regarding the animals and their housing conditions. In accordance with the ARRIVE guidelines and reproducibility standards, I strongly recommend including the following information: • Age range of the animals used in the study; • Details of the cage type (e.g., dimensions, manufacturer); • Details of the diet (e.g., manufacturer, treatment, product code); • Details of water provision (e.g., water bottles vs. automated watering system, treatment); • Details of nesting, bedding, and environmental enrichment (amount, manufacturer, product code). • Line 153 – Please provide more details on the Western-style diet (e.g., percentage of fat, sucrose, protein, moisture content). • Lines 159–160 – The authors state that animal “welfare and health status” were assessed daily. Please describe this procedure. Was this a daily visual health check? • Lines 161–165 – The authors state that “death was not a likely outcome or planned experimental endpoint.” Please clarify whether “death” refers to spontaneous death or euthanasia. Death should be prevented through the application of humane endpoints and should not be considered an endpoint in itself. Moreover, all animals undergoing procedures should be monitored using predefined criteria and humane endpoints at all stages of the experiment. • Line 166 – Humane endpoints included weight loss >20%. Why was body condition scoring not included? In oncological models with internal tumors, body condition score is generally more sensitive than body weight for assessing overall condition (see OBSERVE guidelines). Given that this is a refinement-focused manuscript, this omission should be justified. • Line 167 – Tumor diameter is listed as a humane endpoint. How was tumor size measured? • Table 1 – Table 2 presents an overview of experimental groups, assessed parameters, and the number of animals per cage. This table raises several questions: o Why were not all parameters assessed in all experimental groups? For example, tracking was assessed only in the CCl₄ groups with medical training and tunnel handling, as well as in the conventional group. o Why did the number of animals per cage vary from 1 to 6? Could this variation have influenced parameters such as corticosterone levels? • Lines 228–232 – The description of the “conventional method” for intraperitoneal injections does not correspond to the method typically described for scruffing, nor does it match the description in the cited reference. In particular, the method of immobilizing the animal prior to scruffing is unclear. Conventionally, immobilization is achieved by securing the tail and allowing the mouse to grasp the cage grid with its forepaws. Please justify the choice of the described method. Additionally, given that this is a refinement-focused study, the authors should acknowledge that a more refined and widely accepted scruffing method—the three-finger method, which avoids pressure on the neck area—exists and has been described (see Labitt et al., 2021), as illustrated in Figure 2E. • Line 266 – A space is missing between “interact” and “as.” • Lines 270–271 – It is stated that “each mouse was assessed individually, but with the co-housed animals present in the home cage.” Why was this assessment not performed in complete isolation? Could dominance hierarchies or social interactions have influenced the results? • Body temperature measurements (lines 275–280) – Why was the dorsal region selected for temperature assessment? As infrared thermometers measure surface temperature, contact with the handler’s hands during scruffing or proximity to the tunnel could have influenced the readings. • Subcutaneous tracking chips and movement tracking: o Why were RFID chips implanted in the caudal abdominal region, left of the linea alba? This placement is not recommended (see Kahnau, 2026) and is close to the intraperitoneal injection site, potentially increasing discomfort compared with dorsal subcutaneous implantation. o At what age were the transponders implanted? o Was analgesia provided? • Blood sampling from the tail vein: o Please provide more details on the “conventional restrainer.” o Does the description provided encompass the entire procedure? Were any measures taken to promote vasodilation? • Pathological examination – Please describe the euthanasia method used. How long after the final intraperitoneal injection was euthanasia performed? ________________________________________ Results • Line 372 – A space should be inserted between “interact” and “after,” and between “interact” and “was.” • Lines 372–373 – The authors state that “latency to interact was quite high and very variable in untrained mice,” but these data are not shown in the figure. • Line 381 – A space should be inserted between “interact” and “after.” • Figure 4 – This figure would be more informative if it also included data from untrained mice. • Line 426 – I suggest replacing “Behavioral assessment” with “Activity assessment,” as no specific behaviors were scored. • Lines 473–480 (Pathological examination) – Were any additional procedures performed to confirm the absence of tissue damage resulting from the modified technique? • Lines 488–489 – The authors state that “healthy untrained mice” were used to avoid confounding effects of disease induction. Why was this approach not applied to the other experimental groups? • Was the potential effect of the experimenter on the results evaluated or controlled? ________________________________________ Discussion • Lines 549–554 – The discussion of temperature assessment methods is unclear and should be rephrased. Although the authors refer to different methodologies, they used a contactless infrared thermometer (measurements taken at 2–3 mm from the skin). The discussion should also address other non-invasive and accurate temperature assessment methods, such as thermography, as well as invasive alternatives like implanted microchip transponders. • Lines 571–573 – The authors state that only experienced handlers were included in the study but then mention that newly trained researchers reported decreased hesitation. This sentence should be rephrased for clarity. • Line 581 – The authors discuss the influence of observer experience on Mouse Grimace Scale (MGS) scores. Were the observers in this study experienced? How many scorers were involved? • Lines 597–600 – The authors state that a limitation of fecal corticosterone analysis is the need for metabolic cages. This is incorrect, as fecal samples can be collected directly from the home cage. • Lines 601–602 – Circadian rhythm is mentioned as a limitation of fecal corticosterone analysis; however, this can be mitigated by collecting samples consistently at the same time of day. • Lines 602–607 – Given these known limitations, please justify the choice to quantify corticosterone in fur. ********** -->6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files. If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public. Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.--> Reviewer #1: No Reviewer #2: No ********** [NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.] 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. |
| Revision 1 |
|
-->PONE-D-26-00796R1-->-->A novel application tunnel in combination with medical training reduces stress induced by frequent intraperitoneal injections and blood draws in mice-->--> PLOS One Dear Dr. Hammerich, 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. I acknowledge that all reviewer comments have met. My own careful reading of the manuscript show a number of minor inconsistencies, as listed below, which need addressing before the paper can be accepted. Introduction: First sentence: I don’t think one can back up the claim that rodents are more indispensable than other animal species! They are more commonly used but you are stating that explicitly and with a reference later on in the same paragraph. Line 121-124 The last sentence summarizes the results and should therefore not be part of the Introduction Line 159 “All male mice born in our facility” – is it really true that all male animals born in the entire facility underwent this protocol? Do you have an entire mouse facility dedicated to this line of research? Tables 1 and 2 take up several pages and they present information in a level of detail that is more suitable for the Supplementary materials section than for the article proper. Please move these tables to the Supplementary materials, and include only a brief summary of them in the Materials and Methods section. Line 270 Latency to approaching a human hand is a relevant parameter to measure in this study, but I don’t think that the main issue here is the stress effect on social interaction. Social interaction is not an appropriate description for how mice react to human handling. Animals interact socially with members of their own species, and may also develop a social relationship to individuals of other species (e.g. dogs, cats, horses, farm animals, rats) but that level of relationship is rarely established with a lab mouse. The human hand is the source of stress and discomfort in handling, and the mice are likely to associate the hand with the negative experience of being handled. Mice who have experienced less stressful handling are likely to show a shorter latency to approach the hand (do the mice really interact with the hand?). Please consider this also elsewhere in the manuscript where this concept is addressed. Line 333 Please avoid starting a sentence with a digit. Lines 416-417 What does “No remarkable changes were detectable depending on training success or age” mean? Please reword. Lines 433-434 “Cage means (average body temperature of all mice in one cage) were treated as the experimental unit.”. I think most readers will understand what you mean, but to use precise and correct terminology, the cage is the experimental unit, whereas the average body temperature of all mice in a cage is the datapoint. Lines 512-518 How can you measure social interaction when the mouse is alone in the cage with no other mice present? Line 566 “variation”, not “variety” Line 577 “increasing”, not “maximizing” Lines 578-580 Please reword. I suggest “many studies show improved welfare when replacing tail handling by tunnel or cup handling [15, 29] and this beneficial effect remain even when animals are subject to frequent interventions like ip injections. Lines 616-617 I have never seen the word falsify being used in this way. In science, the word falsify stands for either the formal testing of hypothesis, or for researcher manipulation of data. Please reword. Also, you refer to “by various circumstances” but then only give one example. Please submit your revised manuscript by Jun 04 2026 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file. Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:-->
--> 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. As the corresponding author, your ORCID iD is verified in the submission system and will appear in the published article. PLOS supports the use of ORCID, and we encourage all coauthors to register for an ORCID iD and use it as well. Please encourage your coauthors to verify their ORCID iD within the submission system before final acceptance, as unverified ORCID iDs will not appear in the published article. Only the individual author can complete the verification step; PLOS staff cannot verify ORCID iDs on behalf of authors. We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript. Kind regards, I Anna S Olsson, Ph.D. Academic Editor PLOS One Journal Requirements: 1. 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. 2. 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 1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.--> Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed ********** -->2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions? The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented. --> Reviewer #1: Partly Reviewer #2: Yes ********** -->3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? --> Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: I Don't Know ********** -->4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available? The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.--> Reviewer #1: No Reviewer #2: Yes ********** -->5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English? PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.--> Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ********** -->6. Review Comments to the Author Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)--> Reviewer #1: (No Response) Reviewer #2: (No Response) ********** -->7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files. If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public. Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.--> Reviewer #1: No Reviewer #2: No ********** [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. --> |
| Revision 2 |
|
A novel application tunnel in combination with medical training reduces stress induced by frequent intraperitoneal injections and blood draws in mice PONE-D-26-00796R2 Dear Dr. Hammerich, 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, I Anna S Olsson, Ph.D. Academic Editor PLOS One Additional Editor Comments (optional): Reviewers' comments: |
| Formally Accepted |
|
PONE-D-26-00796R2 PLOS One Dear Dr. Hammerich, 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. I Anna S Olsson Academic Editor PLOS One |
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 .