Feed management practices used for dairy cows in confined dairies in Brazil

Marcelo B. Abreu; Jessica M. V. Pereira; Virginia L. N. Brandao; Marcos Inacio Marcondes

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0344588

Peer Review History

Original SubmissionAugust 27, 2025
12 Oct 2025 Decision Letter - Marcia Saladini Vieira Salles, Editor Dear Dr. Marcondes, plosone@plos.org . When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file. A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'. A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'. An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'. If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter. If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols . Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols . We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript. Kind regards, Marcia Saladini Vieira Salles 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 https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf 2. You indicated that ethical approval was not necessary for your study. We understand that the framework for ethical oversight requirements for studies of this type may differ depending on the setting and we would appreciate some further clarification regarding your research. Could you please provide further details on why your study is exempt from the need for approval and confirmation from your institutional review board or research ethics committee (e.g., in the form of a letter or email correspondence) that ethics review was not necessary for this study? Please include a copy of the correspondence as an ""Other"" file. 3. Please provide additional details regarding participant consent. In the ethics statement in the Methods and online submission information, please ensure that you have specified (1) whether consent was informed and (2) what type you obtained (for instance, written or verbal, and if verbal, how it was documented and witnessed). If your study included minors, state whether you obtained consent from parents or guardians. If the need for consent was waived by the ethics committee, please include this information. 4. If you are reporting a retrospective study of medical records or archived samples, please ensure that you have discussed whether all data were fully anonymized before you accessed them and/or whether the IRB or ethics committee waived the requirement for informed consent. If patients provided informed written consent to have data from their medical records used in research, please include this information. 5. When completing the data availability statement of the submission form, you indicated that you will make your data available on acceptance. We strongly recommend all authors decide on a data sharing plan before acceptance, as the process can be lengthy and hold up publication timelines. Please note that, though access restrictions are acceptable now, your entire data will need to be made freely accessible if your manuscript is accepted for publication. This policy applies to all data except where public deposition would breach compliance with the protocol approved by your research ethics board. If you are unable to adhere to our open data policy, please kindly revise your statement to explain your reasoning and we will seek the editor's input on an exemption. Please be assured that, once you have provided your new statement, the assessment of your exemption will not hold up the peer review process. 6. Please include your full ethics statement in the ‘Methods’ section of your manuscript file. In your statement, please include the full name of the IRB or ethics committee who approved or waived your study, as well as whether or not you obtained informed written or verbal consent. If consent was waived for your study, please include this information in your statement as well. Additional Editor Comments: A well-designed cross-sectional study describing feed management practices on dairy farms in Brazil. The findings are useful for extension and benchmarking purposes and support the need for greater adoption of precision practices by higher-producing herds. Introduction L43 to 55: Please check if this statement is valid, it seems to me to be a very high percentage of increase in milk production per cow for a one-year outlook. ‘As a result, dairy production has grown substantially worldwide, where milk production per cow increased by 88% from 2017 to 2018 [4].’ L55 to 56: Please set this information to a more recent value, it has been almost five years. ‘In addition, from 2006 to 2017, fluid milk production increased by 45% country-wide and reached 35.4 billion L in 2020 [5]. The citations for key information contained in the introduction to the surveys on the property situation in Brazil are over 10 years old. It would be important to update this information. M&M Suggestion to include a flowchart in M&M (n invitations → n responses → exclusions → n final per analysis). Results L152 to 156: This part belongs to the materials and methods section. L185: The entire description in this paragraph belongs to table 2. Figures Figure 1: It would be more didactic and easier for readers to understand if the authors presented the sequence of comparisons first HPxMP, followed by HPxLP, and MPxLP. Tables Table 1: Herd ‘Her milk production level’ Conclusion The conclusion should be a little more straightforward. Remove the initial section summarizing the results; this has already been presented in the respective section. References L486: Custom Reviewer's Responses to Questions Comments to the Author 1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions? Reviewer #1: Partly Reviewer #2: Yes Reviewer #3: Yes ******** 2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? -->?> Reviewer #1: I Don't Know 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 Reviewer #1: No 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: No ****** Reviewer #1: Introduction- The Introduction is a jumble of sentences without a clear logic. What is the study about? What is the context that justifies the research? What is the research intended to answer? The Introduction should be rewritten to clarify the context, justification, state of the art, and objective of the study. Line 53-54- "As a result, dairy production has grown substantially worldwide, where milk production per cow increased by 88% from 2017 to 2018." Where did milk production per cow increase? It's not possible that this happened worldwide. Line 55-56- "In addition, from 2006 to 2017, fluid milk production increased by 45% country-wide and reached 35.4 billion L in 2020." Which country are you referring to? Material and Methods- The description of the research methodology is incomplete. For example, why was the survey only conducted in the southern and southeastern regions of Brazil? These regions are vast. Where were the producers who received the questionnaires concentrated (state and region)? Were the state and region factors considered in the data analysis? What was the process for developing the 38 questions in the questionnaire (based on the literature)? Was the questionnaire sent only once, or were there multiple attempts? The content between lines 108 and 124 is the result of the questionnaires. Why are they included in the materials and methods section? Line 39-140- This classification reflects standard benchmarks used in the region to describe small, medium, and large-scale dairy operations." What is the reference for this classification? Results- The results are discussed superficially, descriptively, without critical analysis of the findings and their meaning. Lines 153-155- 138 responses , 21 blank responses and 33 incomplete surveys were excluded from the dataset. The final analysis was conducted using the remaining 82 complete responses. The correcte number is 84 Lines 157-159. It is important to note that the number of respondents represents only a small fraction of the Brazilian dairy producer population, which totaled approximately 1.1 million in 2019." But this is the total number of producers in Brazil. It wasn't the study's target audience, but rather only those in confined systems. Reviewer #2: The manuscript ‘Feed Management Practices Used for High-Producing Dairy Cows’ aligns well with the scope of PLOS ONE and provides valuable insights into management practices in Brazilian intensive dairy systems. However, minor revisions are required before the manuscript can be accepted. The following suggestions are offered to improve clarity and rigor: Title: The title could be made more informative by including the country, at least, to provide greater precision. Dairy intensive systems in Brazil differ from those in other regions and have unique characteristics, as discussed in the manuscript. Abstract: L31: What was the criterion for selecting those 500? Please add a brief explanation to clarify. Introduction: L54: Review this statement. L56: Please provide an updated value for milk production in Brazil. L58-59: Please revise this sentence, as the phrasing currently resembles AI-generated text format. Ensure it aligns with a natural, academic writing style (review throughout the manuscript). Lines 73-76: The stated objective seems too narrow. Based on the manuscript, the study does not focus solely on high milk production pens but includes herds across low, medium, and high production levels. Consider revising the objective to reflect the full scope of the study. Material and methods: Start the section with approval from the Ethics Committee. L109: This information is duplicate. Please review. L110-124: Please review this text. In my opinion, it does not belong in the Materials and Methods section. Consider moving it to the Discussion or removing it. Results: L164: Review last column format. L166: Standardize with others. L169: I did not understand. L186-187: Blank lines. L191: A reference is not needed if this information comes from the present study. L224-229: Review the use of “;” and “.”. L236: No not use “numerically”. Discussion: It would be interesting to discuss the survey’s representativeness in terms of herd size and production level relative to the Brazilian dairy producer population. L344: Blank line. L355-358: Avoid conclusion statements in each section. L376: Please rephrase. L387: Review to improve readability. L408-410: Please review the text. This result also deserves more discussion and implication “Across all HLMP groups, 83% of producers reported evaluating FE on a monthly basis”. L426-440: I suggest removing this section from the text, as the manuscript is already concise and includes a conclusion section. Conclusion: L444: No dot use methods or results statements in this section. Be objective. Acknowledgements: The Financial Disclosure brings “The author(s) received no specific funding for this work.” . However, they acknowledge “Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Cientifico” for financial support during the study. Please clarify. Reviewer #3: The title should be "Feed management practices used for high-producing dairy cows in Brazil" The manuscript provides important and up-to-date information. However, starting with the title, it should be clear that it refers to dairy systems in Brazil. I recommend having all the manuscript writing and grammar reviewed by a native English speaker. As an example on the first page, there are more appropriate terms, for "furnish" such as "provide" on line 62, or "strategies employed on farms" such as "practices applied on farms" on line 63, and so on throughout the text. There is also incorrect information such as "As a result, dairy production has grown substantially worldwide, where milk production per cow increased by 88% from 2017 to 2018" line 53; It should be clear in phrases like " In addition, from 2006 to 2017, fluid milk production increased by 45% country-wide and reached 35.4 billion L in 2020", especially in the introduction, that you are referring to Brazil. ****** 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: Yes: Collao-Saenz Edgar A ******** 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. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0344588.r001
Revision 1
6 Feb 2026 Author Response Journal Requirements 1. Style and file name requirements were carefully checked and verified. 2. All required statements were included in the attached Ethics section. 3. Informed consent was obtained electronically prior to participation and was required to access the survey. Only individuals who provided consent were able to proceed, and data were collected exclusively from consenting participants. Participation was voluntary, responses were analyzed anonymously and in aggregate, no personally identifiable information was collected, and the study did not involve minors 4. All data were collected anonymously, with no access to personally identifiable information at any stage of the research process. Because the data were fully anonymized at the time of collection and individual identification was not possible, the ethics committee did not require an informed consent waiver. A letter from the Ethic committee from the Universidade Federal de Viçosa was attached to this submission for clarification. 5. Data will be made available upon acceptance of the manuscript. 6. Included as requested. Introduction L43 to 55: Please check if this statement is valid, it seems to me to be a very high percentage of increase in milk production per cow for a one-year outlook. ‘As a result, dairy production has grown substantially worldwide, where milk production per cow increased by 88% from 2017 to 2018 [4].’ R. The information was revised, and the Introduction was rewritten to provide a clearer and more accurate description of the study purpose. L55 to 56: Please set this information to a more recent value, it has been almost five years. ‘In addition, from 2006 to 2017, fluid milk production increased by 45% country-wide and reached 35.4 billion L in 2020 [5]. R. The information has been revised, and the Introduction was rewritten to provide a clearer and more accurate description of the study purpose. The citations for key information contained in the introduction to the surveys on the property situation in Brazil are over 10 years old. It would be important to update this information. R. The citations were updated to include more recent references. M&M Suggestion to include a flowchart in M&M (n invitations → n responses → exclusions → n final per analysis). R. A survey flow diagram was included to clearly illustrate the survey process (Fig 1). Results L152 to 156: This part belongs to the materials and methods section. R. Moved L185: The entire description in this paragraph belongs to table 2. R. We beleive the review had the wrong Table for this comment. Could you please clarify and we will gladly perform the correction Figures Figure 1: It would be more didactic and easier for readers to understand if the authors presented the sequence of comparisons first HPxMP, followed by HPxLP, and MPxLP. R. Corrected Tables Table 1: Herd ‘Her milk production level’ R. Corrected Conclusion The conclusion should be a little more straightforward. Remove the initial section summarizing the results; this has already been presented in the respective section. R. The Conclusion was revised accordingly. The initial summary of results was removed, as these findings are presented in the Results section, and the Conclusion was restructured to enhance clarity and objectivity. References L486: Custom R. Corrected Reviewer #1: Introduction- The Introduction is a jumble of sentences without a clear logic. What is the study about? What is the context that justifies the research? What is the research intended to answer? The Introduction should be rewritten to clarify the context, justification, state of the art, and objective of the study. R. The Introduction was completely rewritten in response to the reviewer’s comment. The revised version now presents a clearer logical structure, including the study context, justification, current state of the art, and the specific objective of the research. Line 53-54- "As a result, dairy production has grown substantially worldwide, where milk production per cow increased by 88% from 2017 to 2018." Where did milk production per cow increase? It's not possible that this happened worldwide. R. There was a typographical error; however, due to the restructuring of the Introduction, the reference was removed. Line 55-56- "In addition, from 2006 to 2017, fluid milk production increased by 45% country-wide and reached 35.4 billion L in 2020." Which country are you referring to? R. It referred to Brazil; however, this reference was removed following the reformulation of the Introduction. Material and Methods- The description of the research methodology is incomplete. For example, why was the survey only conducted in the southern and southeastern regions of Brazil? R. Because these regions represent the majority of confined dairy systems in Brazil.. These regions are vast. Where were the producers who received the questionnaires concentrated (state and region)? R. Survey responses were predominantly from Minas Gerais (n = 55; 67%), followed by Santa Catarina (n = 9; 11%), Rio Grande do Sul (n = 7; 9%), Paraná (n = 5; 6%), São Paulo (n = 4; 5%), and Espírito Santo and Rio de Janeiro (n = 1 each; 1%). Were the state and region factors considered in the data analysis? R. No. Only the production level was considered in the data analysis. What was the process for developing the 38 questions in the questionnaire (based on the literature)? R. Questions were developed based on the most common feeding practices and management strategies reported in the literature. Was the questionnaire sent only once, or were there multiple attempts? R. The questionnaire was sent to participants only once. The content between lines 108 and 124 is the result of the questionnaires. Why are they included in the materials and methods section? R. It was moved to results section Line 39-140- This classification reflects standard benchmarks used in the region to describe small, medium, and large-scale dairy operations." What is the reference for this classification? R. It was based on the expertise of researchers familiar with the Brazilian dairy sector, as there is no official classification of milk production levels for confined dairy systems in Brazil. Results- The results are discussed superficially, descriptively, without critical analysis of the findings and their meaning. Lines 153-155- 138 responses , 21 blank responses and 33 incomplete surveys were excluded from the dataset. The final analysis was conducted using the remaining 82 complete responses. The correct number is 84. R. A typographical error occurred in reporting the number of incomplete surveys; the correct number is 35 rather than 33. Consequently, the total number of respondents was 82. Lines 157-159. It is important to note that the number of respondents represents only a small fraction of the Brazilian dairy producer population, which totaled approximately 1.1 million in 2019." But this is the total number of producers in Brazil. It wasn't the study's target audience, but rather only those in confined systems. R. It was reformulated to corrected describe. Reviewer #2: The manuscript ‘Feed Management Practices Used for High-Producing Dairy Cows’ aligns well with the scope of PLOS ONE and provides valuable insights into management practices in Brazilian intensive dairy systems. However, minor revisions are required before the manuscript can be accepted. The following suggestions are offered to improve clarity and rigor: Title: The title could be made more informative by including the country, at least, to provide greater precision. Dairy intensive systems in Brazil differ from those in other regions and have unique characteristics, as discussed in the manuscript. R. The title was modified to address the reviewer’s comment. Abstract: L31: What was the criterion for selecting those 500? Please add a brief explanation to clarify. R. That was the total number of producers using confined systems, as obtained from the dairy industry and nutritionists. Introduction: L54: Review this statement. R. It was removed after introduction. L56: Please provide an updated value for milk production in Brazil. R. Updated as requested L58-59: Please revise this sentence, as the phrasing currently resembles AI-generated text format. Ensure it aligns with a natural, academic writing style (review throughout the manuscript). R. It was revised. Lines 73-76: The stated objective seems too narrow. Based on the manuscript, the study does not focus solely on high milk production pens but includes herds across low, medium, and high production levels. Consider revising the objective to reflect the full scope of the study. R. We appreciate the reviewer’s comment. Although farms in the study included herds with different production levels, the experimental unit of interest was intentionally restricted to high-producing pens. This was a deliberate design choice rather than a limitation. In Brazilian dairy systems, management practices are highly heterogeneous across pens within the same farm and are commonly stratified by milk yield. High-producing pens are typically prioritized for more intensive and higher-quality management strategies, including the specific practices evaluated in this study. Therefore, focusing on high-producing pens increased the likelihood that the targeted management interventions were consistently applied and biologically relevant. To address the reviewer’s concern, we have revised the objective to clarify that while farms represented a range of production levels, the study specifically evaluated management practices as implemented in high-producing pens, which are the pens most likely to receive and respond to the practices under investigation. This revision ensures that the stated objective accurately reflects the true scope and rationale of the study design. Material and methods: Start the section with approval from the Ethics Committee. Done L109: This information is duplicate. Please review. Revised L110-124: Please review this text. In my opinion, it does not belong in the Materials and Methods section. Consider moving it to the Discussion or removing it. R. It was moved to results section. Results: L164: Review last column format. Corrected. L166: Standardize with others. Corrected. L169: I did not understand. Corrected. R. These values represented the number of respondents in each category. They were revised, deemed not relevant, and therefore removed. L186-187: Blank lines. Corrected. L191: A reference is not needed if this information comes from the present study. R. The information does not come from the present study, and thus the reference was retained. L224-229: Review the use of “;” and “.”. Corrected. L236: No not use “numerically”. Removed. Discussion: It would be interesting to discuss the survey’s representativeness in terms of herd size and production level relative to the Brazilian dairy producer population. L344: Blank line. Removed L355-358: Avoid conclusion statements in each section. Removed L376: Please rephrase. Done L387: Review to improve readability. Revised L408-410: Please review the text. This result also deserves more discussion and implication “Across all HLMP groups, 83% of producers reported evaluating FE on a monthly basis”. Revised L426-440: I suggest removing this section from the text, as the manuscript is already concise and includes a conclusion section. Revised and removed Conclusion: L444: No dot use methods or results stateme.nts in this section. Be objective. Revised to be more straightforward Acknowledgements: Here is a clean, journal-ready version: New Financial Disclosure This study did not receive specific funding for its execution. The Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico (CNPq, Brazil) provided an internship scholarship to the first author during their PhD program. This support was for academic training purposes only and did not fund the design, data collection, analysis, interpretation, or publication of this study. Reviewer #3: The title should be "Feed management practices used for high-producing dairy cows in Brazil" Revised as suggested. The manuscript provides important and up-to-date information. However, starting with the title, it should be clear that it refers to dairy systems in Brazil. Revised as suggested. I recommend having all the manuscript writing and grammar reviewed by a native English speaker. As an example on the first page, there are more appropriate terms, for "furnish" such as "provide" on line 62, or "strategies employed on farms" such as "practices applied on farms" on line 63, and so on throughout the text. R. The manuscript was thoroughly revised to ensure clarity, accuracy, and appropriate scientific English. There is also incorrect information such as "As a result, dairy production has grown substantially worldwide, where milk production per cow increased by 88% from 2017 to 2018" line 53; Revised. It was removed from introduction after revision process based on suggestion from another reviewer It should be clear in phrases like " In addition, from 2006 to 2017, fluid milk production increased by 45% country-wide and reached 35.4 billion L in 2020", especially in the introduction, that you are referring to Brazil. Revised. It was removed from introduction after revision process based on suggestion from another reviewer https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0344588.r002
23 Feb 2026 Decision Letter - Manasa Varra, Editor Feed management practices used for dairy cows in confined dairies in Brazil PONE-D-25-41297R1 Dear Dr. Marcelo B. Abreu, 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, Manasa Varra Academic Editor PLOS One Additional Editor Comments (optional): Dear Marcelo B. Abreu, We are happy to inform that the revised manuscript, PONE-D-25-41297R1 entitled "Feed management practices used for dairy cows in confined dairies in Brazil" has addressed all the comments and hence is recommended for acceptance. Reviewers' comments: Reviewer's Responses to Questions Comments to the Author Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed Reviewer #3: All comments have been addressed ******** 2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions??> Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes Reviewer #3: Yes ****** 3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? -->?> Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes Reviewer #3: Yes ****** 4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available??> The PLOS Data policy Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes Reviewer #3: No ****** 5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English??> Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes Reviewer #3: Yes ****** Reviewer #1: (No Response) Reviewer #2: The authors have done a good job revising the manuscript. The reviewers’ comments were carefully addressed, and the manuscript has improved in clarity, structure, and overall rigor. This study provides valuable benchmarking data on feed management practices in confined dairy systems in Brazil, relevant for producers, nutritionists, extension professionals, and policymaking within the dairy sector. Reviewer #3: The authors cited that all data are fully available without restriction but state that the data will be made available in a public repository after the manuscript is accepted. "Data will be make available in a public repository upon acceptance of the manuscript" ****** 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 ******** https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0344588.r003
Formally Accepted
Acceptance Letter - Manasa Varra, Editor PONE-D-25-41297R1 PLOS One Dear Dr. Marcondes, 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. Manasa Varra Academic Editor PLOS One https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0344588.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 .