Does access to finance condition firms’ green investment responses to environmental pressure? Evidence from Vietnam

Dinh Duc Truong

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0341960

Peer Review History

Original SubmissionJanuary 13, 2026
13 Feb 2026 Decision Letter - Wong Ming Wong, Editor PONE-D-26-02166-->-->Does Access to Finance Condition Firms’ Green Investment Responses to Environmental Pressure? Evidence from Vietnam-->-->PLOS One?> Dear Dr. Truong, 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 Mar 30 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.. 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.. 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.. 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 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 . 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 . 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 . 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, Wong Ming Wong 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 and and and https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf 2. Thank you for stating the following financial disclosure: This study is funded by the National Economics University, Vietnam Please state what role the funders took in the study. If the funders had no role, please state: "The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript." If this statement is not correct you must amend it as needed. Please include this amended Role of Funder statement in your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf. 3. Thank you for stating the following in the Acknowledgments Section of your manuscript: This study is funded by the National Economics University, Vietnam We note that you have provided funding information that is not currently declared in your Funding Statement. However, funding information should not appear in the Acknowledgments section or other areas of your manuscript. We will only publish funding information present in the Funding Statement section of the online submission form. Please remove any funding-related text from the manuscript and let us know how you would like to update your Funding Statement. Currently, your Funding Statement reads as follows: This study is funded by the National Economics University, Vietnam Please include your amended statements within your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf. 4. Please update your submission to use the PLOS LaTeX template. The template and more information on our requirements for LaTeX submissions can be found at http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/latex. 5. Please ensure that you refer to Figure 1 in your text as, if accepted, production will need this reference to link the reader to the figure. 6. Please include a caption for figure 2. 7. Please upload a copy of Figure 2, to which you refer in your text on page 12. If the figure is no longer to be included as part of the submission please remove all reference to it within the text. 8. 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 : Please revise your manuscript according to these comments from reviewers. Sincerely, Wong Ming Wong [Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.] Reviewers' comments: Reviewer's Responses to Questions Comments to the Author 1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions? Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes Reviewer #3: Partly ******** 2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? -->?> Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes Reviewer #3: N/A ****** 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.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 Reviewer #3: No ****** 4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English??> Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: No Reviewer #3: Yes ****** Reviewer #1: I am attaching my review report in PDF file format for your consideration. The document contains my detailed assessment of the manuscript, including comments on its theoretical contribution, methodology, empirical analysis, and overall clarity of presentation. Reviewer #2: The paper addresses a timely and policy relevant question on green investment in emerging economies using firm level data from Vietnam. Overall, the study is clearly written and empirically structured, but several conceptual, methodological, and interpretative issues require further clarification and strengthening. The contribution to the literature should be articulated more explicitly beyond the interaction framework, as similar conditional finance arguments already exist in green finance and innovation studies. The authors are encouraged to position the novelty more clearly at the firm level and relative to recent ESG and sustainability reporting literature. The use of perception based measures for both environmental pressure and financial constraints raises concerns about common method bias. The authors should discuss this limitation more explicitly and consider diagnostic checks or robustness strategies, in line with insights from An assessment of methods to deal with endogeneity in corporate governance and reporting research. The cross sectional design limits causal interpretation, yet several sections of the discussion and policy implications imply quasi causal effects. The language should be tightened throughout to consistently reflect associative rather than causal claims, following best practices highlighted in An assessment of methods to deal with endogeneity in corporate governance and reporting research. The magnitude of the reported coefficients, particularly for environmental pressure in the baseline model, appears modest. The authors should clarify whether these effect sizes are economically meaningful by providing marginal effects in percentage point terms in the main text, not only in figures. The reported green investment rate of 26.8 percent is reasonable for an emerging economy context, but the interaction effect suggests a sharp weakening under high financial constraints. This pattern may indicate threshold or non linear effects that deserve further discussion or additional tests. The financial constraint variable is sometimes discussed as access to finance and sometimes as constraints, which may confuse readers. A consistent terminology aligned with the empirical measurement should be maintained throughout the manuscript. Firm size and exporter status show strong and stable significance across models, yet their roles are not sufficiently theorized. The discussion section should better integrate these findings, potentially drawing on arguments related to firm capability and accountability discussed in Sustainability Assurance and Corporate Environmental Accountability. The robustness checks are appropriate but reported at a very high level. Providing at least one full alternative regression table in the appendix would improve transparency and replicability. The policy implications section is well developed but somewhat repetitive of the discussion. It could be streamlined and better anchored to the empirical magnitudes rather than general policy reasoning. The manuscript would benefit from engaging more directly with recent debates on environmental accountability and governance responses to regulatory pressure, as discussed in“Social Trust, Environmental Violations, and Remedial Actions in China”, Social and Environmental Accountability Journal, 45(1). 81-83. https://doi.org/10.1080/0969160X.2025.2465948 The discussion could be further strengthened by linking the findings to broader sustainability reporting and governance mechanisms, particularly in emerging markets, as highlighted in Corrupt practice and sustainability reporting: Lifecycle perspective. Finally, the study could suggest future extensions using panel data or quasi experimental designs to address reverse causality between financial constraints and green investment, reinforcing the methodological agenda outlined in An assessment of methods to deal with endogeneity in corporate governance and reporting research. Reviewer #3: This manuscript examines whether firms’ access to finance conditions the relationship between environmental pressure and green investment, using firm-level data from the World Bank Enterprise Survey for Vietnam. The study is clearly motivated, methodologically sound, and empirically rigorous. Its central contribution lies in demonstrating a conditional mechanism that environmental pressure translates into green investment primarily when firms face fewer financial constraints. The comments below are intended to strengthen the manuscript’s conceptual grounding, interpretive depth, and policy relevance. 1. While the paper draws effectively on the Porter Hypothesis and investment constraint literature, the theoretical background remains largely economic and incentive-based (Sections 2.1–2.3). The argument would benefit from explicit institutional theory integration, particularly regarding how regulatory uncertainty, enforcement credibility, and institutional capacity shape firms’ perceptions of environmental pressure. Relevant citation to add: (Theoretical perspectives on green banking adoption in India: regulatory uncertainty, institutional barriers, and policy solutions. Discover Sustainability, 6(1). https://doi.org/10.1007/s43621-025-01406-3 ). 2. The manuscript carefully notes that financial constraints are the inverse of access to finance (Section 3.2), yet the terminology is sometimes used interchangeably in interpretation and policy discussion. 3. Section 6 offers thoughtful policy implications, but the discussion remains somewhat generic with respect to how financial systems can operationally support green investment. Relevant citation to add: (Eco-friendly finance: the role of green CSR, processes, and products in enhancing brand trust and image. Environ Dev Sustain (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-024-05748-2) 4. Although limitations are acknowledged in Section 8, the reliance on perception-based measures (environmental pressure and financial constraints) deserves slightly deeper reflection. 5. Ensure consistent usage of “financial constraints” in tables and “access to finance” in interpretation. 6. Consider adding a short explanatory note clarifying the moderating mechanism for readers outside economics. 7. The SME heterogeneity result is important; consider briefly flagging this again in the Conclusion. ****** what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.). 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 For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy..--> Reviewer #1: No Reviewer #2: No Reviewer #3: Yes: Sarath Chandran MCSarath Chandran MCSarath Chandran MCSarath Chandran MC ******** [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.0341960.r001
Revision 1
30 Mar 2026 Author Response RESPONSE REPORT TO REVIEWERS’ COMMENTS The authors would like to express their sincere gratitude to the anonymous reviewers for their thoughtful and constructive comments on the manuscript. We greatly appreciate the time and effort invested in providing detailed and insightful feedback. The reviewers’ suggestions have been extremely valuable in helping us improve the clarity, coherence, and overall academic rigor of the study. We have carefully considered all comments and have revised the manuscript accordingly. The revisions have been made thoroughly and systematically to address each concern raised by the reviewers. All changes are clearly indicated in the revised manuscript. In addition, we provide a detailed, point-by-point response below to explain how each comment has been addressed. We respectfully submit the revised manuscript for your further consideration and sincerely hope that the revisions adequately respond to the reviewers’ comments and improve the quality of the paper. We are grateful for the opportunity to revise and resubmit our work to the journal. Reviewer 1: I am attaching my review report in PDF file format for your consideration. The document contains my detailed assessment of the manuscript, including comments on its theoretical contribution, methodology, empirical analysis, and overall clarity of presentation. Response: We sincerely thank Reviewer 1 for the time and careful evaluation of our manuscript. We highly appreciate the reviewer’s effort in preparing a detailed report covering the theoretical contribution, methodology, empirical analysis, and overall clarity of the paper. However, we regret to note that the PDF file containing the detailed review report does not appear to be accessible in the submission system or the correspondence we received. As a result, we are currently unable to fully engage with the reviewer’s comments. We would be very grateful if the Editor could kindly provide access to the review report, or if Reviewer 1 could re-upload the file. We will carefully address all comments and revise the manuscript accordingly once the report is available. In the meantime, we have revised the manuscript extensively based on the comments from the other reviewers to improve clarity, theoretical positioning, and empirical interpretation. We sincerely appreciate the reviewer’s contribution and look forward to incorporating their feedback. Reviewer 2: The paper addresses a timely and policy relevant question on green investment in emerging economies using firm level data from Vietnam. Overall, the study is clearly written and empirically structured, but several conceptual, methodological, and interpretative issues require further clarification and strengthening. Comment 1: The contribution to the literature should be articulated more explicitly beyond the interaction framework, as similar conditional finance arguments already exist in green finance and innovation studies. The authors are encouraged to position the novelty more clearly at the firm level and relative to recent ESG and sustainability reporting literature. Response: We sincerely thank the reviewer for this insightful and constructive comment. We fully agree that the contribution of the study should be articulated more clearly beyond the interaction framework, particularly in relation to the growing literature on green finance, ESG, and sustainability reporting. In response, we have revised the manuscript to strengthen the positioning of the study’s novelty along three key dimensions: First, we clarify that the contribution of this study does not lie solely in testing a conditional finance mechanism, which indeed has been explored in prior green innovation and finance literature. Instead, we emphasize that our contribution is to examine this mechanism at the firm level using direct behavioral measures of green investment, rather than relying on aggregate indicators (e.g., emissions, ESG scores, or innovation outputs). This allows us to provide a more granular understanding of how environmental pressure is translated into actual investment decisions. Second, we explicitly position the study relative to the recent ESG and sustainability reporting literature. While ESG studies typically focus on disclosure, performance metrics, or external ratings, our study focuses on internal investment behavior as a response to regulatory pressure, thereby capturing a different and underexplored dimension of firms’ environmental engagement namely, the investment channel through which firms operationalize environmental compliance. Third, we highlight the contribution in the context of emerging economies by showing that financial constraints act not only as a barrier to green investment but as a conditioning factor that explains heterogeneous firm responses to environmental pressure. This provides a micro-foundation for understanding why ESG-related policies and environmental regulations may yield uneven outcomes across firms. These clarifications have been incorporated into the revised manuscript, particularly in the Introduction (final paragraph) and further reinforced in the Discussion section. Comment 2: The use of perception based measures for both environmental pressure and financial constraints raises concerns about common method bias. The authors should discuss this limitation more explicitly and consider diagnostic checks or robustness strategies, in line with insights from An assessment of methods to deal with endogeneity in corporate governance and reporting research. Response: We sincerely thank the reviewer for this important and insightful comment. We agree that the use of perception-based measures for both environmental pressure and financial constraints may raise concerns regarding common method bias (CMB). In response, we have taken the following steps: First, we now explicitly acknowledge this issue in the manuscript and clarify that both key variables are derived from managerial perceptions, which may introduce correlated measurement errors. Second, we note that the empirical specification partially mitigates this concern by including a rich set of control variables, as well as industry and regional fixed effects, which help reduce omitted variable bias and systematic reporting patterns across firms. Third, to further address the reviewer’s concern, we have strengthened our robustness analysis by incorporating alternative proxies for financial constraints, which are less directly perception-based. The results remain consistent, suggesting that the findings are not driven by a single measurement approach. Finally, following the reviewer’s suggestion and insights from the literature on endogeneity and reporting bias, we have expanded the discussion of potential bias and clarified that the results should be interpreted as associations rather than causal effects, given the cross-sectional and perception-based nature of the data. These revisions have been incorporated into the Data and variables section (measurement discussion) and further elaborated in the limitations paragraph in the Discussion section. Comment 3: The cross sectional design limits causal interpretation, yet several sections of the discussion and policy implications imply quasi causal effects. The language should be tightened throughout to consistently reflect associative rather than causal claims, following best practices highlighted in an assessment of methods to deal with endogeneity in corporate governance and reporting research. Response: We sincerely thank the reviewer for this important observation. We agree that the cross-sectional design limits causal interpretation and that the language should consistently reflect associative relationships. In response, we have carefully revised the manuscript to avoid any causal or quasi-causal phrasing. Specifically, terms such as “effect,” “impact,” or “leads to” have been replaced with more appropriate expressions such as “is associated with,” “is linked to,” or “correlates with.” These revisions have been implemented throughout the Introduction, Results, Discussion, and Policy Implications sections. In addition, we have strengthened the methodological clarification by explicitly stating that the analysis identifies statistically robust associations rather than causal effects, in line with best practices in the literature on endogeneity and observational data. Comment 4: The magnitude of the reported coefficients, particularly for environmental pressure in the baseline model, appears modest. The authors should clarify whether these effect sizes are economically meaningful by providing marginal effects in percentage point terms in the main text, not only in figures. Response: We sincerely thank the reviewer for this helpful suggestion. We agree that reporting effect sizes in economically interpretable terms improves the clarity and relevance of the findings. In response, we have revised the manuscript to report marginal effects in percentage point terms directly in the main text, in addition to the graphical presentation. Specifically, we now present the marginal effect of environmental pressure on the probability of green investment, evaluated at representative values of financial constraints. These results show that, while the coefficient magnitude in the baseline model appears modest, the corresponding marginal effects are economically meaningful. The revised text clarifies the magnitude of these effects in percentage point terms to facilitate interpretation. Comment 5: The reported green investment rate of 26.8 percent is reasonable for an emerging economy context, but the interaction effect suggests a sharp weakening under high financial constraints. This pattern may indicate threshold or non linear effects that deserve further discussion or additional tests. Response: We sincerely thank the reviewer for this insightful observation. We agree that the attenuation of the relationship under high financial constraints may reflect potential nonlinear or threshold dynamics. In response, we have clarified this interpretation in the revised manuscript by explicitly discussing the possibility of nonlinear effects in the interaction between environmental pressure and financial constraints. The marginal effects analysis already indicates that the association becomes substantially weaker at higher levels of financial constraints, which is consistent with a threshold-like pattern. At the same time, given the cross-sectional nature of the data and the focus of the study, we refrain from formally estimating threshold or nonlinear models. Instead, we acknowledge this as an important avenue for future research and highlight its implications in the Discussion section. We believe this clarification strengthens the interpretation of the results while maintaining consistency with the study’s empirical design. Comment 6: The financial constraint variable is sometimes discussed as access to finance and sometimes as constraints, which may confuse readers. A consistent terminology aligned with the empirical measurement should be maintained throughout the manuscript. Response: We sincerely thank the reviewer for this helpful comment. We agree that the use of both “access to finance” and “financial constraints” may create confusion if not consistently aligned with the empirical measurement. In response, we have revised the manuscript to ensure consistent terminology throughout. Specifically, the variable is now uniformly referred to as “financial constraints”, which directly reflects the underlying survey measure. References to “access to finance” are retained only where conceptually necessary and are clearly framed as the inverse of financial constraints. Comment 7: Firm size and exporter status show strong and stable significance across models, yet their roles are not sufficiently theorized. The discussion section should better integrate these findings, potentially drawing on arguments related to firm capability and accountability discussed in Sustainability Assurance and Corporate Environmental Accountability. Response: We sincerely thank the reviewer for this valuable suggestion. We agree that the roles of firm size and exporter status deserve clearer theoretical integration. In response, we have strengthened the Discussion section by explicitly linking these findings to arguments on firm capability and accountability. In particular, we interpret firm size as reflecting organizational capacity and resource availability for undertaking green investment, while exporter status is associated with greater exposure to international standards and external scrutiny, which can increase environmental accountability. These additions help situate the empirical findings within the broader literature on corporate environmental behavior and sustainability assurance, and improve the theoretical coherence of the discussion. Comment 8: The robustness checks are appropriate but reported at a very high level. Providing at least one full alternative regression table in the appendix would improve transparency and replicability. Response: We sincerely thank the reviewer for this helpful suggestion. We agree that providing more detailed robustness results would enhance transparency and replicability. In response, we have added a full regression table for one key robustness specification (probit model) in the Appendix. This table reports complete estimation results, including coefficients, standard errors, and model diagnostics. The main text has been revised to refer explicitly to this additional table. Comment 9: The policy implications section is well developed but somewhat repetitive of the discussion. It could be streamlined and better anchored to the empirical magnitudes rather than general policy reasoning. Response: We sincerely thank the reviewer for this helpful comment. We agree that the policy implications section can be further streamlined and more closely anchored to the empirical results. In response, we have revised this section to reduce repetition with the Discussion and to link policy implications more explicitly to the magnitude of the estimated effects. In particular, we now emphasize the marginal effects of environmental pressure and the moderating role of financial constraints in percentage point terms to illustrate the practical significance of the findings. Comment 10: The manuscript would benefit from engaging more directly with recent debates on environmental accountability and governance responses to regulatory pressure, as discussed in“Social Trust, Environmental Violations, and Remedial Actions in China”, Social and Environmental Accountability Journal, 45(1). 81-83. https://doi.org/10.1080/0969160X.2025.2465948 Response: We sincerely thank the reviewer for this insightful suggestion. We agree that engaging more directly with recent debates on environmental accountability and governance responses can strengthen the theoretical positioning of the study. In response, we have revised the Discussion section to incorporate insights from the literature on environmental accountability and governance mechanisms. In particular, we highlight that firms’ responses to environmental pressure are shaped not only by formal regulation but also by informal governance forces such as social trust, reputational pressure, and external monitoring, which can reinforce accountability and influence environmental behavior. These additions help situate our findings within a broader governance framework and clarify how regulatory pressure interacts with accountability mechanisms in shaping firms’ green investment decisions. Comment 11: The discussion could be further strengthened by linking the findings to broader sustainability reporting and governance mechanisms, particularly in emerging markets, as highlighted in Corrupt practice and sustainability reporting: Lifecycle perspective. Response: We sincerely thank the reviewer for this valuable suggestion. We agree that linking the findings more explicitly to sustainability reporting and governance mechanisms can strengthen the discussion. In response, we have revised the Discussion section to incorporate insights from the literature on sustainability reporting and governance Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Response report to reviewers comments.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0341960.r002
7 Apr 2026 Decision Letter - Wong Ming Wong, Editor Does Access to Finance Condition Firms’ Green Investment Responses to Environmental Pressure? Evidence from Vietnam PONE-D-26-02166R1 Dear Dr. Truong, 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 and clicking the ‘Update My Information' link at the top of the page. For questions related to billing, please contact and clicking the ‘Update My Information' link at the top of the page. For questions related to billing, please contact 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, Wong Ming Wong Academic Editor PLOS One Additional Editor Comments (optional): Reviewers' comments: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0341960.r003
Formally Accepted
Acceptance Letter - Wong Ming Wong, Editor PONE-D-26-02166R1 PLOS One Dear Dr. Truong, 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. Wong Ming Wong Academic Editor PLOS One https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0341960.r004

Open letter on the publication of peer review reports

PLOS recognizes the benefits of transparency in the peer review process. Therefore, we enable the publication of all of the content of peer review and author responses alongside final, published articles. Reviewers remain anonymous, unless they choose to reveal their names.

We encourage other journals to join us in this initiative. We hope that our action inspires the community, including researchers, research funders, and research institutions, to recognize the benefits of published peer review reports for all parts of the research system.

Learn more at ASAPbio .