https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0025-8760
Peer Review History
| Original SubmissionMay 7, 2025 |
|---|
|
PONE-D-25-22053 The effects of paracetamol on body temperature and blood pressure in patients with acute stroke. Data from the PRECIOUS trial. PLOS ONE Dear Dr. de Jonge, 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. ============================== ACADEMIC EDITOR: Heartfelt thanks to the authors for submitting their work to PLOS ONE for consideration for publications. A number of critical areas have been identified in the manuscript that require revision to improve its scholarly content and quality. These include critical issues in specific areas identified by the reviewers including introduction, methodology, results, discussion and conclusion sections. Furthermore, authors should also address the key concerns regarding the choice of statistical methods, and credibility of the statistical analysis, interpretation and inferential judgement presented in the manuscript. Furthermore, the questions raised regarding the weak justification and lack of knowledge gaps should also be properly addressed in the revised manuscript. Lastly, authors should revise the whole manuscript for grammar and syntax to improve readability and sharpen its focus. Best wishes and I look forward to seeing your revised manuscript with an improved scholarly quality and content. ============================== Please submit your revised manuscript by Aug 07 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 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, Kazeem Babatunde Yusuff, Ph.D Academic Editor PLOS ONE Journal Requirements: When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements. 1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and 2. We note that the grant information you provided in the ‘Funding Information’ and ‘Financial Disclosure’ sections do not match. When you resubmit, please ensure that you provide the correct grant numbers for the awards you received for your study in the ‘Funding Information’ section. 3. Thank you for stating the following financial disclosure: [PRECIOUS was funded by the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme (634809).]. 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. In the online submission form, you indicated that [De-identified individual participant data and a data dictionary defining each field in the set can be made available to others upon reasonable request to the corresponding author, subject to privacy regulation.]. All PLOS journals now require all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript to be freely available to other researchers, either 1. In a public repository, 2. Within the manuscript itself, or 3. Uploaded as supplementary information. This policy applies to all data except where public deposition would breach compliance with the protocol approved by your research ethics board. If your data cannot be made publicly available for ethical or legal reasons (e.g., public availability would compromise patient privacy), please explain your reasons on resubmission and your exemption request will be escalated for approval. 5. Please include captions for your Supporting Information files at the end of your manuscript, and update any in-text citations to match accordingly. Please see our Supporting Information guidelines for more information: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/supporting-information. 6. Thank you for stating the following in the Competing Interests section: [JCdJ, WMS, HR report grants from the European Union, all paid to their institution. PMB is Stroke Association Professor of Stroke Medicine and an emeritus NIHR Senior Investigator; he has received grants from the NIHR and British Heart Foundation, and funding for consultancy from CoMind and DiaMedica. DvdB reports having received research grants from the European Union, The Netherlands for Health Research and Development, ItsMe Foundation, AMC Foundation and Roche; none related. AHA reports research grants from Boehringer Ingelheim, lectures fee from Abbvie, BMS/Pfizer, Novartis, Roche and Teva and participation in Advisory Board for Lundbeck, Abbvie and MSD; none related. AC reports grants from the European Union and Lombardy region, for research paid to his institution, and fees as consultant or lecturer from Alexxion Pharma, Daiichi Sanky, and Italfarmaco. JK reports lecturer fees from Boehringer Ingelheim, Pfizer and Servier, and travel grants from Boehringer Ingelheim and Servier, none related. MDC has received research grants from the Werner Otto Foundation, speakers honoraria from AstraZeneca and was funded by the Faculty of Medicine, University of Kiel, Germany through its Advanced Clinician Scientist Programme, all outside the submitted work. IKJ reports lectures and travel grants from Merck, Novartis and Roche, Angelini Pharma and travel grants from Boehringer Ingelheim, none related. GT report grants from the European Union, German Research Foundation, German Federal Ministry of Education and Research, German Innovation Fund for research paid to his institution, and fees as consultant or lecturer from Acandis, Alexion, Amarin, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Daiichi Sanky, BristolMyersSqibb/Pfizer, and Stryker. HBvdW reports having received grants from the European Union, the Dutch Heart Foundation, and Stryker for research, and funding for consultancy from Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, and TargED, all paid to his institution.]. We note that you received funding from a commercial source: [European Union, NIHR, British Heart Foundation, Abbvie, BMS/Pfizer, Lombardy region, Alexxion Pharma, Daiichi Sanky, Italfarmaco, Boehringer Ingelheim, Pfizer and Servier, Werner Otto Foundation, Faculty of Medicine, University of Kiel, Merck, Novartis and Roche, Angelini Pharma, German Research Foundation, German Federal Ministry of Education and Research, Acandis, Alexion, Amarin, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Daiichi Sanky, BristolMyersSqibb/Pfizer, and Stryker] Please provide an amended Competing Interests Statement that explicitly states this commercial funder, along with any other relevant declarations relating to employment, consultancy, patents, products in development, marketed products, etc. Within this Competing Interests Statement, please confirm that this does not alter your adherence to all PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials by including the following statement: ""This does not alter our adherence to PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials.” (as detailed online in our guide for authors http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/competing-interests). If there are restrictions on sharing of data and/or materials, please state these. Please note that we cannot proceed with consideration of your article until this information has been declared. Please include your amended Competing Interests Statement within your cover letter. We will change the online submission form on your behalf. 7. One of the noted authors is a group [PRECIOUS investigators]. In addition to naming the author group, please list the individual authors and affiliations within this group in the acknowledgments section of your manuscript. Please also indicate clearly a lead author for this group along with a contact email address. [Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.] Reviewers' comments: Reviewer's Responses to Questions Comments to the Author 1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions? The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented. Reviewer #1: Partly Reviewer #2: Partly Reviewer #3: Yes ********** 2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: No Reviewer #2: Yes Reviewer #3: Yes ********** 3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available? The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes Reviewer #3: Yes ********** 4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English? PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes Reviewer #3: Yes ********** 5. Review Comments to the Author Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters) Reviewer #1: Reviewer Comments This manuscript evaluates the effects of prophylactic paracetamol administration on body temperature and blood pressure among elderly acute stroke patients, leveraging data from the international PRECIOUS randomized controlled trial (RCT). The analysis of 1,419 patients aimed to validate previous findings from studies such as the PAIS trial. Your primary conclusion—that paracetamol modestly reduces mean body temperature and significantly decreases the occurrence of subfebrile or febrile episodes without affecting blood pressure—is clinically relevant and clearly articulated. Overall, the manuscript is logically structured and well-presented. The international, multicenter RCT design ensures robust statistical power and enhances external validity. However, important concerns regarding the accuracy and transparency of your statistical analysis—specifically related to the chi-square test results—need to be urgently addressed, as these issues directly influence the credibility and interpretability of your findings. Specific Comments: 1. Multiple Comparisons and Potential for Inflated Type I Error: Given that statistical analyses were conducted across multiple time points (every 12 hours over a 7-day period), there is a significant risk of inflated Type I errors (false positives). The manuscript does not clearly indicate whether any statistical corrections (such as Bonferroni, Holm, or False Discovery Rate adjustments) for multiple comparisons were applied. Recommendation: Explicitly clarify whether any correction for multiple comparisons was performed. If corrections were not applied, please provide a clear justification for this decision in the manuscript. Transparently acknowledging this issue will considerably enhance the methodological rigor and reliability of your analysis. 2. Clarification Regarding "Adjusted Difference" in Table 2: In Table 2, you report an 'Adjusted difference'; however, the methods section lacks a clear explanation of how these adjusted mean differences were derived. Recommendation: Clearly explain the statistical approach and the specific covariates used for adjustment when calculating these differences. This should be explicitly detailed in the statistical methods section of your manuscript to ensure clarity and reproducibility. 3. Major Concern – Discrepancies in Chi-square Test Results (Table 3): In your methods section, you indicated that differences in the rate of subfebrile temperatures or fever were assessed using chi-square tests, with results presented in Table 3. Upon independently recalculating these chi-square values using the provided data, I identified discrepancies between your reported p-values and the independently calculated ones. While these discrepancies generally do not appear large enough to substantially alter your primary conclusions, they nevertheless undermine the robustness and credibility of the statistical analysis performed. Notably, these differences remained even when employing Fisher’s Exact Test, suggesting a systemic issue rather than simply the choice of statistical test. Furthermore, because the variables utilized in your multiple regression analyses were not fully provided, it was impossible for me to independently validate those analyses as well. Recommendation: Please urgently re-examine and confirm the accuracy of all chi-square analyses presented in Table 3 using reliable statistical software (e.g., R, Python, SPSS, Stata). Provide transparent recalculations of these analyses along with clearly documented steps or scripts to facilitate external verification. Clarifying this issue is critical to ensure confidence in the reported results and their interpretation. I have shared with the editorial team the Python script and resulting calculations I performed for further reference and verification. Addressing these concerns will significantly enhance the methodological clarity, transparency, and overall quality of your manuscript. Reviewer #2: This was a substudy of the PRECIOUS study. Prophylactic administration of paracetamol (acetaminophen) has been reported to reduce body temperature in the first days after stroke and to reduce blood pressure on the first day. The investigators wanted to validate these findings in the randomized PRECIOUS trial. The paper was well presented from the statistical perspective. Absolute mean differences (with 95% confidence intervals (CI)) in body temperature, heart rate, and systolic and diastolic blood pressure between patients randomized to paracetamol versus no paracetamol, were assessed by multiple linear regression for each 12-hour time point after randomization in the first 7 days after randomization. Performing this type of timepoint analysis the investigators concluded that prophylactic use of paracetamol resulted in a modest reduction in mean body temperature and almost halved the rate of subfebrile temperatures or fever at 24 hours after stroke, but had no effect on blood pressure. Figures 1a to 1c basically demonstrated the results. The analysis was by time and obviously was very simple. Although this was not the intent of the original trial and the results are mostly observational, one wonders why the investigators did not attempt a repeated measures type of analysis with treatment and time as the factors and getting a p-value for these overall effects for the course of this short study. Also please comment on the interaction noticed in the plots, mostly at the end of the Figures 1a and 1b. Also since a multiple regression analysis adjustment was made, was there any attempt to examine the significance of the baseline values on the outcome? Reviewer #3: Subject: Peer Review Feedback – Manuscript ID: PONE-D-25-22053 Title: The effects of paracetamol on body temperature and blood pressure in patients with acute stroke. Data from the PRECIOUS trial Thank you for the opportunity to review this manuscript. The submitted work represents a secondary analysis of the PRECIOUS trial - an international, multicenter, 3×2 factorial, randomized, controlled trial investigating the effects of paracetamol, metoclopramide, and ceftriaxone in older adults (≥66 years) with acute stroke and NIHSS score ≥6. The PRECIOUS trial’s main outcomes, protocol, and statistical analysis plan have previously been published in peer-reviewed journals. This manuscript investigates a clinically relevant topic – i.e. the effects of paracetamol on temperature and blood pressure (BP) in acute stroke patients. While the study addresses an important area with limited existing evidence, the manuscript in its current form requires significant revision to meet the standards of PLOS ONE. Below are my detailed comments and suggestions for improvement. General Comments • The manuscript is generally well-structured and presents interesting findings. However, improvements are needed in language, grammar, and scientific writing quality. • I strongly recommend a thorough proofreading by a native English speaker with experience in clinical research to enhance clarity and coherence. • The rationale for conducting this secondary analysis is weakly presented. A more robust literature review is needed to clearly articulate the knowledge gap this study addresses. • All abbreviations should be defined at first mention and used consistently throughout. For example, NIHSS was not defined in the abstract. • Subheadings in various sections are inconsistently formatted. Title • The current title does not fully reflect the study population. Since all included participants were ≥66 years, I recommend revising the title to include “older adult patients” for accuracy. Abstract • Background and Aims: The rationale for the study is not clearly stated. Prior studies have reported on paracetamol’s effects in stroke, what new aspect is being investigated here? • Methods: The outcome descriptions must be consistent with the main text (e.g., diastolic BP is included in the main manuscript but not in the abstract). • Results: When referring to “blood pressure,” clarify whether this means “systolic blood pressure” specifically. Introduction • The introduction should better define what is known, what remains unknown, and the research gap. • Line 72: Specify what is meant by “functional outcomes.” • Line 77: Define what is considered a “high dose” of paracetamol and cite relevant sources. • Line 83–84: Expand on the association between elevated temperature/BP and poor clinical outcomes, including which outcomes. • Line 87: Replace “by contrast” with “in contrast.” • Line 90–92: Clarify the objective statement, which is currently confusing due to the introduction of PAIS. Methods • Lines 96–104: Please cite the original publication(s) of the PRECIOUS trial. The long sentence here should be broken into shorter, clearer ones. • Line 109–110: Dates should follow academic and journal-specific formatting. • Line 113: Ensure uniformity in formatting of subheadings (some are bold, others italicized). • Line 119–122: Clarify the statement about omitting one randomization stratum. • Line 136–137: Ensure consistency in the list of primary outcomes across sections. • Line 151: Avoid redundancy - baseline body temperature was already listed. • Line 155–156: “Statistical significance was set at 95%” is incorrect. Please revise to “a p-value < 0.05 was considered statistically significant.” • Line 156: The city of manufacture for SPSS should be verified. Chicago, IL may not be accurate. Results • Line 177 onwards (last paragraph) – I see potential reporting bias in the paper. The reporting of systolic BP findings is detailed, but diastolic BP is completely omitted, despite being a listed primary outcome. • Please present findings on diastolic BP, in the text and/or through an additional table or figure. Discussion • The discussion is too descriptive. A more critical interpretation of the findings in the context of existing literature is required. • Avoid redundancy and focus on key outcomes and their implications. • Line 188: Reword “by a very modest 0.1°C” to improve clarity and tone. • Line 191: Please cite the previous randomized trial referenced. • Line 193–194 and Line 204–205: Address grammatical errors in these sentences. • Consider including interpretation of findings related to DBP and HR, which are currently underrepresented. Conclusion • The conclusion should be more reflective of the study’s findings and emphasize clinical implications. Ensure alignment with the study’s objectives. Tables • Table 1: o Title of Table 1 is not descriptive enough. o Is the age presented as mean (SD), please specify in the first column? o Medical history: Some have % in the first column, others like AF and DM do not have the symbol of %. • Table 2: o Expand the title for clarity – it is currently not descriptive enough. o A similar table for diastolic BP should be created and included. o References • Ensure all in-text citations and reference formatting follow PLOS ONE’s guidelines. Reviewer’s Summary In summary, the manuscript has the potential to contribute valuable data on a topic of interest in stroke management. However, substantial revision is necessary to clarify its rationale, improve its consistency, and enhance scientific rigor. I hope the authors will find these comments constructive in revising the manuscript. ********** 6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files. If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public. Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy. Reviewer #1: No Reviewer #2: No 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. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step. |
| Revision 1 |
|
PONE-D-25-22053R1 The effects of paracetamol on body temperature and blood pressure in elderly patients with acute stroke. Data from the PRECIOUS trial. PLOS One Dear Dr. de Jonge, 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. ACADEMIC EDITOR: Heartfelt thanks to the authors for addressing the gaps identified in the previous reviews in the revised manuscript. However, a few minor revisions have been suggested in the study title and figures. Please submit your revised manuscript by Jan 22 2026 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file. Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:
If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter. If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols. We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript. Kind regards, Kazeem Babatunde Yusuff, 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. Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice. [Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.] Reviewers' comments: Reviewer's Responses to Questions Comments to the Author 1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation. Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed Reviewer #3: (No Response) ********** 2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions? The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented. Reviewer #2: (No Response) Reviewer #3: Yes ********** 3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #2: (No Response) Reviewer #3: Yes ********** 4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available? The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified. Reviewer #2: (No Response) Reviewer #3: Yes ********** 5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English? PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here. Reviewer #2: (No Response) Reviewer #3: Yes ********** 6. Review Comments to the Author Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters) Reviewer #2: (No Response) Reviewer #3: 1. I suggest the title should include the word "prophylactic" as the management here was not therapeutic. I suggest something like: "The Effects of Prophylactic Paracetamol use on Body Temperature and Blood Pressure in Patients with Acute Stroke". 2. I still feel Figures 1a, 1b, 1c are not of good resolution. Kindly improve the resolution. ********** 7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files. If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public. Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy. Reviewer #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.] To ensure your figures meet our technical requirements, please review our figure guidelines: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/figures You may also use PLOS’s free figure tool, NAAS, to help you prepare publication quality figures: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/figures#loc-tools-for-figure-preparation. NAAS will assess whether your figures meet our technical requirements by comparing each figure against our figure specifications. |
| Revision 2 |
|
The effects of prophylactic use of paracetamol on body temperature and blood pressure in elderly patients with acute stroke. Data from the PRECIOUS trial. PONE-D-25-22053R2 Dear Dr. de Jonge, 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, Kazeem Babatunde Yusuff, Ph.D Academic Editor PLOS One Additional Editor Comments (optional): Reviewers' comments: |
| Formally Accepted |
|
PONE-D-25-22053R2 PLOS One Dear Dr. de Jonge, 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 Prof. Kazeem Babatunde Yusuff 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 .