How peer mechanism impacts loan repayment in a Self-help group?: An empirical study in India

Nishi Malhotra

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0341674

Peer Review History

Original SubmissionJuly 24, 2025
17 Sep 2025 Decision Letter - Jenna Scaramanga, Editor PONE-D-25-40003-->-->How peer mechanism impacts loan repayment in a Self-help group? An empirical study-->-->PLOS ONE?> Dear Dr. Malhotra, 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. The manuscript has been evaluated by two reviewers, and their comments are available below. --> -->-->?> Please submit your revised manuscript by Oct 31 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, Jenna Scaramanga Staff Editor PLOS ONE Journal Requirements : When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements. 1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf . 2. Please provide additional details regarding participant consent. In the ethics statement in the Methods and online submission information, please ensure that you have specified (1) whether consent was informed and (2) what type you obtained (for instance, written or verbal, and if verbal, how it was documented and witnessed). If your study included minors, state whether you obtained consent from parents or guardians. If the need for consent was waived by the ethics committee, please include this information. If you are reporting a retrospective study of medical records or archived samples, please ensure that you have discussed whether all data were fully anonymized before you accessed them and/or whether the IRB or ethics committee waived the requirement for informed consent. If patients provided informed written consent to have data from their medical records used in research, please include this information. 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. 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. 5. If the reviewer comments include a recommendation to cite specific previously published works, please review and evaluate these publications to determine whether they are relevant and should be cited. There is no requirement to cite these works unless the editor has indicated otherwise. [Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.] Reviewers' comments: Reviewer's Responses to Questions Comments to the Author 1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions? Reviewer #1: Partly Reviewer #2: No ******** 2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? -->?> Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: No ****** 3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available??> The PLOS Data policy Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English??> Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: No ****** Reviewer #1: • Topic: Good, interesting and researchable. But the study location is missing. Better to add at the last of the topic – in India • Abstract –Lengthy, concise it. • Introduction: Poor. The contextual issues are missing. Use of old citations (not after 2017). Need to add latest citations. Remove problem statements and objectives of the research under the sub-headings (It is not a thesis, a research paper!). Keep it under the introduction part in a concise form. • Literature Review: Poor. The theory, model and policy related to the research area is missing. Not shown the research gap and a conceptual framework. The review of paper is too old, not found citations after 2015. The way of citations is not proper. Significant improvement is required. Consult the papers and add the latest citations: Dhungana, B. R., Chapagain, R., Pokhrel, O. P., Sharma, L. K., & Gurung, J. B. (2025). Assessing the performance of microfinance institutions in Nepal. Pacific Business Review International, 17(11). Dhungana, B. R., Chapagain, R., & Ashta, A. (2023). Alternative strategies of for-profit, not-for-profit and state-owned Nepalese microfinance institutions for poverty alleviation and women empowerment. Cogent Economics & Finance, 11(2), 2233778. Chapagain, R. K., & Dhungana, B. R. (2020). Does microfinance affect the living standard of the household? Evidence from Nepal. Finance India, 34(2). Dhungana, B. R. (2016). Does loan size matter for productive application? Evidence from Nepalese micro-finance institutions. Repositioning:The Journal of Business and Hospitality, 1, 63-72. • Methodology: Poor. No need sub headings. Concise it and remove irrelevant writings. • Results and Discussion: Poor. This section is missing. You’re your results and analysis under this section. You need to compare your results with previous researchers that may be for and against with your findings. It is necessary to cite properly. • Conclusion: Concise it. Highlight what interesting message you found and provide suggestions to the policy makers. Also highlight -why your research is useful for policy implications. • Others: Follow the format as prescribed by the journal. Reviewer #2: The introduction lacks a broader context, failing to connect the study to the wider global landscape of microfinance and self-help groups (SHGs). It could also provide a more detailed discussion on how the problem of information asymmetry manifests in various microfinance models. The Literature Review section primarily relies on foundational theories without exploring more recent or conflicting perspectives. It also lacks a critical review of the limitations of the existing research it cites, such as contexts where peer mechanisms have failed. Findings and Discussion: The discussion is confirmatory mainly and does not deeply explore counterintuitive or unexpected findings. It lacks a nuanced analysis of potential downsides, such as whether a high frequency of meetings could lead to group fatigue. Comparing the findings to other geographical or cultural contexts is also missing. Conclusion and Implication: This section lacks a discussion of the policy and practical limitations of the study's findings. It recommends the peer mechanism for financial inclusion but doesn't address the real-world challenges of large-scale implementation, such as training costs or the ethical implications of social sanctions. Overall, the paper is also poorly written, as it lacks a research method, and the numbering is inconsistent. ****** 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: Yes: Bharat Ram Dhungana Reviewer #2: No ******** [NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.] While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/ . PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org . Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step. Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Comments by BRD_Sept 6 2025.pdf https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0341674.r001
Revision 1
14 Oct 2025 Author Response Reply to queries Thanks for your valuable review comments. I am highly obliged and thankful for your consideration and time. I have incorporated the comments provided by Reviewer 1 and Reviewer 2. I am pleased to submit the manuscript for your consideration. REVIEWER 1 Comment 1: Abstract –Lengthy, concise it. Reply: I have synthesised the abstract and made it concise. The revision has been made in the manuscript Section 1 “Women’s empowerment…………………………research.” Comment 2: Introduction. The contextual issues are missing. Use of old citations (not after 2017). Need to add the latest citations. Remove problem statements and objectives of the research under the subheadings (It is not a thesis, a research paper!). Keep it under the introduction part in a concise form. “Globally…………………………………………………………………………. hazard” Reply: I have added the latest citations in the study. And the problem and objectives of the research under subheadings have been removed. At the same time, I have added the contextual issues in the introduction of the study. Comment 3: Literature: The theory, model and policy related to the research area are missing. The research gap and a conceptual framework are not shown. The review of the paper is too old, and it does not cite citations after 2015. The way of citations is not proper. Significant improvement is required. Consult the papers and add the latest citations: Dhungana, B. R., Chapagain, R., Pokhrel, O. P., Sharma, L. K., & Gurung, J. B. (2025). Assessing the performance of microfinance institutions in Nepal. Pacific Business Review International, 17(11). Dhungana, B. R., Chapagain, R., & Ashta, A. (2023). Alternative strategies of for-profit, not-for-profit and state-owned Nepalese microfinance institutions for poverty alleviation and women empowerment. Cogent Economics & Finance, 11(2), 2233778. Chapagain, R. K., & Dhungana, B. R. (2020). Does microfinance affect the living standard of the household? Evidence from Nepal. Finance India, 34(2). Dhungana, B. R.(2016). Does loan size matter for productive application? Evidence from Nepalese micro-finance institutions. Repositioning: The Journal of Business and Hospitality, 1, 63-72 Conceptual framework and research gap have been included in the literature review section of the study Reply: I have added the latest citations, and I have also included the research gap and conceptual framework in the data. I have tried to update the literature review as per the latest developments in the field. The comments are provided in the study along with the changes. Comment 4: Methodology: No need for subheadings. Concise it and remove irrelevant writings Reply: Irrelevant writings have been removed from the methodology section. Comment 5: Result & analysis: This section is missing. You’re your results and analysis under this section. You need to compare your results with previous researchers who may be for or against your findings. It is necessary to cite Reply: Results and analysis have been improved. The findings from the other study have corroborated the results. Under the discussion and analysis section for all the hypotheses, the findings from other studies have been included to corroborate the findings and the results Comment 6: Concise it. Highlight what interesting message you found and provide suggestions to the policy makers. Also, highlight why your research is helpful for policy implications Reply: In the conclusion section, I have included the policy implications and new findings of the study Others: Follow the format as prescribed by the journal Reply: Format prescribed by the journal has been followed REVIEWER 2: Comment 1: The introduction lacks a broader context, failing to connect the study to the wider global landscape of microfinance and self-help groups (SHGs). It could also provide a more detailed discussion on how the problem of information asymmetry manifests in various microfinance models. Reply: I have tried to add the contextual details in the introduction of the study. I have also added the details regarding the microfinance models in the study. “Globally………………..hazard” Comment 2: The Literature Review section primarily relies on foundational theories without exploring more recent or conflicting perspectives. It also lacks a critical review of the limitations of the existing research it cites, such as contexts where peer mechanisms have failed. Reply: I have tried to incorporate the conflicting perspectives in the study, and also included the critical review and limitations of the study in the data. I have also added the details regarding the instances where the peer mechanism has failed in the past “Despite various case studies on how peer mechanisms have ensured higher repayment, certain case groups disintegrated due to excessive loan burden. One of the notable examples of community lending failure is over indebtedness and loan default of micro borrowers with Grameen Bank. Similarly, many self-help groups, linked with microfinance institutions, faced repayment defaults in Andhra Pradesh. In the case of APMAS (Andhra Pradesh Mahila Abhivruddhi Society), heavy reliance on joint liability created peer pressure, leading to political backlash, political tensions, and suicides. While ROSCAs thrive on thrust, the reason for failure was the informal institutional framework and lack of legal recourse. Similarly, wealthier members in the village dominated decision-making, leading to the failure of community lending initiatives. Thus, internal factors impact how peer pressure impacts repayment in a group. Any heterogeneity among the group members regarding financial literacy, education, social status, and peer pressure might not work equally, and loan default might rise (Verma et al., 2024). Besides, the external factors, like leadership, might also impact how peer pressure influences loan repayment and default. Another exogenous factor impacting loan repayment and default is digital technology. Thus, no empirical evidence exists that peer pressure works equally in different group conditions. Moreover, this research study explores the impact of various factors that account for why peer pressure does not work equally, leading to differences in loan repayment.” Findings and Discussion: The discussion is mainly confirmatory and does not deeply explore counterintuitive or unexpected findings. It lacks a nuanced analysis of potential downsides, such as whether a high frequency of meetings could lead to group fatigue. Comparing the findings to other geographical or cultural contexts is also missing. Reply: In the findings and discussion section, I have included the potential downside, such as whether a higher frequency of meetings could lead to group fatigue. Hypothesis 3: Peer monitoring, sanctions and pressure reduce the moral hazard in a group The data analysis highlights that peer monitoring reduces the likelihood of external loan default in a group. However, peer monitoring that is undertaken through regular meetings and informal interaction promotes more accountability and financial discipline among the members of the group. Regular meetings and evaluation of repayment schedules reduce the likelihood of default among the members of the group (Tri, 2024). Thus, an optimum number of meetings and repayment schedules reduces the likelihood of external loan default. However, an excessive number of meetings results in personal fatigue and psychological costs, which can result in strategic default (Pellegrina et al, 2021). In addition to this, the willingness of members to help other members of the group reduces the risk of external default among the members of the group. Willingness to help others leads to higher solidarity, and better cohesion leads to trust and reciprocity among the members of the group (Feigenberg, Field, & Pande, 2019). Indeed, social capital serves as the basis of lending to the members of the group. Thus, social capital improves access to formal finance while reducing external loan default. Conclusion and Implication: This section lacks a discussion of the policy and practical limitations of the study's findings. It recommends the peer mechanism for financial inclusion but doesn't address the real-world challenges of large-scale implementation, such as training costs or the ethical implications of social sanctions. Reply: In the conclusion, I have tried to add the details regarding the increasing training costs and the ethical implications of the social sanctions As per the study, peer mechanisms are critical in determining group quality and sustainability. According to the findings of the study, peer selection effectively reduces adverse selection, which is consistent with existing theoretical findings, though the risk of collusion persists. Peer monitoring through regular meetings enhances accountability and brings about repayment discipline in the group. However, excessive frequency of meetings can lead to psychological costs. Contrary to earlier findings, peer sanctions erode trust and cohesion while increasing default risk. Thus, there is a stark finding that several self-help groups use peer sanctions, which raises serious ethical considerations and can be an area of research for the future. Rather than the findings that the leadership and social capital in the form of business correlation improve group quality and repayments, more emphasis should be on exercising control through better leadership, whereas the use of informal and peer pressure helps to reduce the misuse of funds, but their impact and effect might vary across contexts. Overall, peer mechanisms such as selection, monitoring and peer pressure can reduce adverse selection and moral hazard; their effectiveness is contextual. Use of technology and appropriate leadership can reduce default risks and sustain trust among the group members. Further research can be undertaken to investigate impact of various contextual moderators, such as geographical or regional variation, group size, to design more adaptive policy frameworks leveraging peer mechanisms Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Response to reviewers (1).docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0341674.r002
15 Dec 2025 Decision Letter - Zakaria Boulanouar, Editor PONE-D-25-40003R1-->-->How peer mechanism impacts loan repayment in a self help group ? An empirical study in India-->-->PLOS One?> Dear Dr. Malhotra, 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. ============================== Based on the reviewer’s final comments, I am pleased to inform you that your manuscript is accepted pending minor revisions. Please ensure the following before final acceptance: Add a few recent and relevant citations in the discussion section, as suggested by the reviewer. Ensure that the manuscript fully adheres to the journal’s formatting guidelines. Once these minor adjustments are made, we will proceed with the final steps of publication. ============================== Please submit your revised manuscript by Jan 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. A 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, Zakaria Boulanouar, PhD 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. Additional Editor Comments: Based on the reviewer’s final comments, I am pleased to inform you that your manuscript is accepted pending minor revisions. Please ensure the following before final acceptance: 1- Add a few recent and relevant citations in the discussion section, as suggested by the reviewer. 2- Ensure that the manuscript fully adheres to the journal’s formatting guidelines. Once these minor adjustments are made, we will proceed with the final steps of publication. [Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.] Reviewers' comments: Reviewer's Responses to Questions Comments to the Author Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed ******** 2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions??> Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? -->?> Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available??> The PLOS Data policy Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English??> Reviewer #1: No Reviewer #2: Yes ****** Reviewer #1: (No Response) Reviewer #2: As this is the second review, the author has addressed few comments and revised it accordingly. Hence, the article could be considered for publication ****** 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: Yes: Bharat Ram Dhungana 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. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0341674.r003
Revision 2
22 Dec 2025 Author Response RESPONSE TO REVIEWERS 1. Addition of Recent and Relevant Citations: As suggested by you, the comments have been included in the manuscript (Discussion section) and given as references 23, 27, 64, and 24. Citations suggested by the reviewer have been added 2. Adherence to Journal Formatting Guidelines: The manuscript has been thoroughly revised, and all necessary changes have been implemented. 1) Reference style has been changed to Vancouver 2) Double spacing and line numbers have been added I believe that these minor revisions have improved the overall clarity and scholarly contribution of the manuscript. We hope that the revised version meets the journal’s expectations and is now suitable for final acceptance. Regards Dr Nishi Malhotra Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: RESPONSE TO REVIEWERS_PLOSONER1.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0341674.r004
11 Jan 2026 Decision Letter - Zakaria Boulanouar, Editor How peer mechanism impacts loan repayment in a self help group ? An empirical study in India PONE-D-25-40003R2 Dear Dr. Malhotra, 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, Zakaria Boulanouar, PhD Academic Editor PLOS One Additional Editor Comments (optional): Dear Dr. Malhotra, We are pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been accepted for publication in the journal. The editorial office will contact you in due course regarding the next steps in the production process. Thank you for your interest in and contribution to the journal. Regards Reviewers' comments: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0341674.r005
Formally Accepted
Acceptance Letter - Zakaria Boulanouar, Editor PONE-D-25-40003R2 PLOS One Dear Dr. Malhotra, 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. Zakaria Boulanouar Academic Editor PLOS One https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0341674.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 .