https://orcid.org/0009-0008-6566-5368
Peer Review History
| Original SubmissionFebruary 4, 2025 |
|---|
|
Dear Dr. Lu, 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. Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE . Your study explores the molecular mechanisms by which Asparagine Synthetase (ASNS) contributes to CMV and HIV co-infections, particularly through its involvement in the PI3K-AKT-mTOR signaling pathway. Your investigation into the regulatory roles of transcription factors RUNX1, ATF4, and MDM2 adds valuable insights to the understanding of viral co-infection biology and therapeutic targeting. Following a thorough peer review, we have received a constructive comment that we believe will help improve the clarity and impact of your work. Specifically, the reviewer requests further explanation on how ASNS modulates the PI3K/AKT/mTOR pathway . Providing more mechanistic detail or elaboration on this aspect whether based on your experimental data or supported by relevant literature would significantly strengthen your discussion and enhance the translational relevance of your findings. We encourage you to revise the manuscript accordingly and include a clear explanation of the proposed mechanism by which ASNS influences the PI3K-AKT-mTOR signaling cascade in the context of CMV and HIV co-infection. Please submit your revised manuscript along with a detailed response to the reviewer’s comment, outlining how you have addressed the concern. ============================== Please submit your revised manuscript by Jun 05 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. Please include the following items when submitting your revised 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, Opeyemi Iwaloye 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. Please note that PLOS ONE has specific guidelines on code sharing for submissions in which author-generated code underpins the findings in the manuscript. In these cases, we expect all author-generated code to be made available without restrictions upon publication of the work. Please review our guidelines at https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/materials-and-software-sharing#loc-sharing-code and ensure that your code is shared in a way that follows best practice and facilitates reproducibility and reuse. 3. Thank you for stating the following financial disclosure: [This research was funded by the Wuxi Science and Technology Development Fund (Grant number: Y20232005).]. 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. 4. 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. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions? Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes Reviewer #3: Yes ********** 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 Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes Reviewer #3: Yes ********** 4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English??> Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes Reviewer #3: Yes ********** Reviewer #1: This is a well-executed study with strong potential implications for CMV and HIV therapeutic strategies. The findings are well-supported by robust analyses, and the manuscript aligns with high scientific and ethical standards. Reviewer #2: I have read the paper titled “Molecular Interplay of ASNS and the PI3K-AKT-mTOR Pathway in CMV and HIV Co-Infections: Therapeutic Implications” and find it interesting. The study presents a comprehensive methodological approach, including molecular docking and dynamics analyses of ONL and cidofovir in their interactions with the ASNS protein. The integration of multiple computational techniques—ranging from molecular docking to root-mean-square deviation (RMSD), root-mean-square fluctuation (RMSF), center of mass (COM) distance, radius of gyration (RG), solvent-accessible surface area (SASA), and hydrogen bond frequency analyses—demonstrates a rigorous and systematic investigation. Additionally, the inclusion of 2D structural representations enhances the clarity of the study, making it accessible to both computational biologists and experimental researchers. The findings provide valuable insights into ASNS modulation, with potential implications for therapeutic development in diseases associated with ASNS deregulations. As such, I would consider it suitable for publication after minor revision 1. While the study successfully evaluates the interactions of ONL and cidofovir with ASNS, a comparison with known ASNS inhibitors would provide additional context regarding their binding efficiency and potential therapeutic relevance. Including literature references on previously studied ASNS inhibitors can strengthen the discussion. 2. To further validate the stability and binding affinity of these ligands, incorporating molecular mechanics-based free energy calculations (MM/PBSA or MM/GBSA) would further strengthen or improve the computational findings. 3. Since both ligands interact with key residues (VAL-52, VAL-51, ARG-48), discussing their functional role in ASNS activity and whether these interactions influence enzyme function or substrate binding would provide its mechanistic insights. This could be added to the discussion of the findings Reviewer #3: The manuscript titled “Molecular interplay of ASNS and the PI3K-AKT-mTOR pathway in CMV and HIV co-infections: therapeutic implications” investigates the role of Asparagine Synthetase (ASNS) in Cytomegalovirus (CMV) and Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV) co-infections. It was discovered that ASNS is involved in the PI3K-AKT-mTOR signaling pathway and is regulated by transcription factors RUNX1, ATF4, and MDM2. The findings suggest that ASNS is a critical mediator in both infections, offering a basis for targeted therapeutic interventions to improve patient outcomes in managing these viral co-infections. However, I suggest the authors explain how ASNS modulates the PI3K/AKT mTOR Pathway. ********** 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 Reviewer #3: 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
|
| Revision 1 |
|
Dear Dr. Lu, 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. Kudos to the authors for responding positively to the initial queries. No doubt, the quality of the submission has improved significantly. However, some concerns have been raised affecting some critical sections of the manuscript. I hereby recommend another round of major revision to address the current concerns and reserve my final decision until they are comprehensively resolved.. Please submit your revised manuscript by Oct 22 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.
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, Yusuf Oloruntoyin Ayipo, Ph.D Academic Editor PLOS ONE Journal Requirements: If the reviewer comments include a recommendation to cite specific previously published works, please review and evaluate these publications to determine whether they are relevant and should be cited. There is no requirement to cite these works unless the editor has indicated otherwise. Additional Editor Comments: Kudos to the authors for responding positively to the initial queries. No doubt, the quality of the submission has improved significantly. However, some concerns have been raised affecting some critical sections of the manuscript. I hereby recommend another round of major revision to address the current concerns and reserve my final decision until they are comprehensively resolved. [Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.] Reviewers' comments: Reviewer's Responses to Questions Comments to the Author Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed Reviewer #4: (No Response) ********** 2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions??> Reviewer #2: (No Response) Reviewer #4: Partly ********** 3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? -->?> Reviewer #2: (No Response) Reviewer #4: Yes ********** 4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available??> The PLOS Data policy Reviewer #2: (No Response) Reviewer #4: Yes ********** 5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English??> Reviewer #2: (No Response) Reviewer #4: Yes ********** Reviewer #2: The authors have satisfactorily addressed all major concerns raised in the initial review. The addition of comparative analysis with known ASNS inhibitors and the discussion of key residues improves the mechanistic depth of the manuscript. While MM/PBSA or MM/GBSA calculations were not performed, the limitation is acknowledged. I am satisfied with the revisions and recommend acceptance for publication. Reviewer #4: Molecular interplay of ASNS and the PI3K-AKT-mTOR pathway in CMV and HIV co-infections: therapeutic implications 1. Overview (1.I). The manuscript explores the role of ASNS interactions with the PI3K-AKT- mTOR signaling pathway in the pathogenesis of co-infections involving Cytomegalovirus (CMV) and Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV). Targeting the molecular mechanisms underlying this co-infection is a promising therapeutic strategy. (1.II). The manuscript seeks to fill a critical knowledge gap on a clinically important topic, but it will benefit from revisions in the areas described below. 2. Abstract (2.I). The CMV and HIV co-infection biology, why it matters, or how it worsens disease, is not explained. To demonstrate an urgency for this study, consider adding one sentence on how CMV/HIV co-infections are clinically important and poorly understood mechanistically. (2.II). Introduce ASNS as the novel axis by establishing ASNS as the metabolic/signal-regulatory hub linked to PI3K–AKT–mTOR. (2.III). The therapeutic implication is vague. While cidofovir–ASNS binding is intriguing, it’s unclear if this is clinically relevant or hypothetical. The rationale should be sharper and hypothesis-driven. (2.IV). Consider closing with a translational tone. For example, “Together, these findings indicate ASNS as a metabolic–signalling hub exploited during viral co-infections and highlight its potential as a novel therapeutic target. This work provides a foundation for experimental validation and the development of host-directed strategies against CMV–HIV co-infections.” 3. Introduction (3.I). This section appears too descriptive and not mechanistic enough, as much of the text reads like background for a review article instead of an original study introduction. There is a need to highlight novel biological hypotheses earlier. Consider leading with the significance of co-infection. For example, instead of just prevalence, emphasize the synergistic pathology, such as CMV reactivation under HIV, which worsens immune suppression and contributes to non-AIDS morbidity. (3.II). Consider adding context for the 90% co-infection prevalence by providing regional differences or comparing pre-ART vs ART-era. (3.III). The research gap can be positioned more properly. For example, make it clear that while HIV and CMV independently exploit host metabolism and signaling, their shared metabolic rewiring during co-infection is poorly understood. (3.IV). ASNS was introduced abruptly as a "critical gene" without first building the rationale from known biology. For example, first summarize its roles in metabolism, viral pathogenesis, and immune modulation, then argue why it might be a convergent vulnerability. (3.V). Consider recasting the bioinformatics justification. For example, instead of “cost-effective,” stress that integrative transcriptomic and network analyses enable unbiased discovery of shared molecular nodes across infections. (3.VI). The PI3K–AKT–mTOR pathway is mentioned, but not in the specific context of how CMV and HIV hijack it. Consider framing PI3K–AKT–mTOR specifically in a viral context. For example, note how both HIV and CMV hijack this pathway for replication, survival, and immune evasion. Then position ASNS as an upstream regulator. 4. Methodology (4.I). Some datasets like GSE14490, GSE68563, and GSE6740 are introduced multiple times in slightly different contexts, which risks redundancy and confusion. Consider introducing datasets once in a clear table (e.g., dataset ID, tissue, condition, n-samples) and then referring back as needed. (4.II). While the computational details are extensive, the biological rationale for each step is often missing. For example, why random forest instead of another ML approach (to prioritize network nodes)? Why focus on plasma cells (are they reservoirs or effectors in HIV infection)? Why cidofovir as a ligand (does its known antiviral activity suggest an off-target host effect)? (4.III). Several datasets are quite small, such as 3,000 scRNA-seq cells and LOOCV for limited samples. The sample size limitations should be acknowledged or emphasized here or in the Discussion section. (4.IV). Inter-subsection integration is missing, and it is unclear how these layers of data are integrated to converge on ASNS as a hub. To integrate the methods flow, consider a paragraph at the start, such as “We combined transcriptomic profiling, network analysis, machine learning, scRNA-seq, and molecular modelling to identify host factors linking CMV and HIV co-infections. Each layer of analysis progressively refined ASNS as a candidate therapeutic node.” 5. Results (5.I). There is an over-description of figures, making the narrative long and mechanical rather than conceptual. Results should highlight the biological meaning more than the figure-by-figure technical details. Thus, instead of walking through every violin plot or RMSD shift, emphasize what the set of results means biologically. For example, “Across multiple CMV and HIV datasets, ASNS expression was consistently elevated and strongly co-expressed with PI3K–AKT–mTOR components, particularly AKT2. This pattern suggests a shared metabolic signaling axis activated during co-infection.” (5.II). Subsections sometimes feel repetitive. For example, the point “ASNS is upregulated and co-expressed with PI3K-AKT-mTOR” appears multiple times with slightly different datasets. To avoid diluting novelty, consider collapsing redundant descriptions and integrating across datasets. For example, rather than three paragraphs showing ASNS co-expression in CMV and HIV separately, synthesize them. (5.III). In all results from bioinformatic and in silico predictions, explicitly use the language of correlation instead of causality. For example, while docking suggests cidofovir interacts with ASNS, it is premature to imply drug repurposing without functional validation. This must be framed as hypothesis-generating, instead. (5.IV). Immune checkpoint findings are underdeveloped. For example, LAG3/ITPRIPL1 changes are noted but not mechanistically integrated with ASNS/PI3K-mTOR interplay. Also, signaling biology is under-emphasized. The Results repeatedly state correlations, but they don’t deeply interpret how ASNS might mechanistically regulate PI3K–AKT–mTOR signaling in the context of HIV/CMV. Consider deepening biological interpretation. For example, how might ASNS-driven amino acid biosynthesis fuel PI3K–AKT–mTOR signaling? Could this represent a metabolic vulnerability in viral co-infection? Is LAG3 upregulation part of a compensatory immune checkpoint response to ASNS/PI3K-mTOR activity? 6. Discussions (6.I). This section is overly descriptive and repetitive, sometimes reading like a re-summarization of the Results (e.g., volcano plots, docking hydrogen bonds, machine learning details) rather than a conceptual synthesis. Consider shifting focus from descriptive to conceptual, and instead of rehashing docking results, emphasize what they mean biologically. For example, “Cidofovir’s predicted binding to ASNS highlights the possibility that existing antivirals may inadvertently target host metabolic enzymes.” (6.II). Stay with correlation and not causality. For example, the idea of a “self-sustaining loop” between ASNS and PI3K–AKT–mTOR is attractive, but as currently stated, it risks overinterpretation of correlation. Consider using softer language like “may suggest,” “hypothesis-generating”. (6.III). You note LAG3 and immune checkpoints but don’t deeply tie them back to the ASNS/metabolic signaling story. Consider explicitly linking immune checkpoint modulation to ASNS/PI3K–mTOR activity and viral immune evasion strategies. (6.IV). The link between ASNS expression in plasma cells and higher CMV susceptibility in HIV+ patients is intriguing, but speculative. Phrase carefully. (6.V). The cidofovir binding data are intriguing, but there is too much emphasis on clinical application without in vitro or in vivo validation. Overall, use careful language like “suggests,” “is consistent with,” “may represent” instead of strong assertions. (6.VI). Emphasize novelty by making clear that this is the first integrative analysis positioning ASNS as a metabolic–signalling nexus in CMV/HIV co-infection. (6.VII). Overall, consider organizing the Discussion into 4–5 thematic subsections, including (1) ASNS as a metabolic–signalling hub in viral infection, (2) Interplay with PI3K–AKT–mTOR and implications for viral pathogenesis, (3) Immune evasion and plasma cell–specific expression, (4) Therapeutic opportunities and limitations, and (5) Future directions, involving multi-omics and validation. 7. Conclusion (7.I). This section reads like a Results recap, repeating technical details (VAL-51, ASN-74, number of transcription factors, etc.) rather than distilling broader conceptual insights. Consider moving granular data like docking residues, TF names, etc., into Results/Discussion and in Conclusion, focus more on highlighting conceptual advances and implications. (7.II). Phrasing like “elucidates the pivotal role” may be too strong, given that findings are correlative and in silico. Soften your tone and adopt phrases like “suggests a central role” or “identifies ASNS as a candidate hub.” (7.III). The conclusion doesn’t connect back to the bigger picture, such as viral exploitation of host metabolism, new paradigms in co-infection biology, or implications for precision virology. Consider connecting findings to broader themes like viral metabolic hijacking, systems biology of co-infection, and opportunities for host-directed therapy. (7.IV). The suggestion of “targeted therapies and personalized medicine strategies” sounds overstated unless tempered as potential hypotheses for future testing. (7.V). Emphasize conceptual novelty by stressing that this is the first integrative analysis nominating ASNS as a metabolic–signalling nexus in CMV/HIV co-infections. (7.VI). End with a forward-looking statement such as a call for experimental validation, multi-omics, and translational exploration. 8. Final Recommendations (8.I). The manuscript seeks to fill a critical knowledge gap on a clinically important topic, but it will benefit from revisions in the areas described above. ********** 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 #2: No Reviewer #4: 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. |
| Revision 2 |
|
Molecular interplay of ASNS and the PI3K-AKT-mTOR pathway in CMV and HIV co-infections: therapeutic implications PONE-D-25-05870R2 Dear Dr. Lu, 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, Yusuf Oloruntoyin Ayipo, Ph.D Academic Editor PLOS One Additional Editor Comments (optional): Congratulations to the authors. The study is timely and well-designed. Again, the submission meets the level of scientific rigour required for publication in this title, and all the concerns raised by the respective reviewers have been addressed satisfactorily. I hereby recommend the manuscript for publication in the current version, provided the authors satisfy the journal’s policy on changes to authorship during editorial review process. Reviewers' comments: Reviewer's Responses to Questions Comments to the Author Reviewer #4: All comments have been addressed ********** 2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions??> Reviewer #4: Yes ********** 3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? -->?> Reviewer #4: Yes ********** 4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available??> The PLOS Data policy Reviewer #4: Yes ********** 5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English??> Reviewer #4: Yes ********** Reviewer #4: The authors has satisfactorily addressed all comments I raised earlier. I now recommend that the manuscript be accepted. ********** 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 #4: No ********** |
| Formally Accepted |
|
PONE-D-25-05870R2 PLOS One Dear Dr. Lu, 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. Yusuf Oloruntoyin Ayipo 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 .