Knowledge, awareness and attitude among practicing oral and maxillofacial surgeons towards tele-dentistry: A cross-sectional survey

Ayse Ozcan-Kucuk; Ali Mentes; Adalet Celebi; Fethi Atıl

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0346591

Peer Review History

Original SubmissionJune 30, 2025
18 Sep 2025 Decision Letter - Prita Abhay Dhaimade, Editor Dear Dr. Ozcan Kucuk, Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process. Please submit your revised manuscript by Nov 02 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.. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file. A 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 . Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at . Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at . Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.... We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript. Kind regards, Prita Abhay Dhaimade 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. In the online submission form, you indicated that the data underlying the results presented in the study are available from (Associate Professor Dr. Ayse OZCAN KUCUK E-mail address: ayseozcan89@hotmail.com Phone number: +90 324 361 00 01). All PLOS journals now require all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript to be freely available to other researchers, either a. In a public repository, b. Within the manuscript itself, or c. 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. 3. If the reviewer comments include a recommendation to cite specific previously published works, please review and evaluate these publications to determine whether they are relevant and should be cited. There is no requirement to cite these works unless the editor has indicated otherwise. [Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.] Reviewers' comments: Reviewer's Responses to Questions Comments to the Author 1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions? Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ******** 2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? -->?> Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: 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.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 ****** 4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English??> Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ****** Reviewer #1: Thank you All comments are added in the manuscript Please address these The understanding of a Discussion must especially be addressed It has a lot of potential and has all the information that is needed Reviewer #2: 1. Materials and methods Sampling: convenience sampling method does raise some concerns regarding overall representation. The author should write how the sample size is selected? and calculated? Questionnaire: While some parts of the study are based on previous research, there is no information on what changes were made, if any, and if their psychometric properties–validation and reliability, post-change–were determined, all these points should be considered and placed on the text. Analysis. Only Chi-square and Bonferroni tests are referenced. I suggest to add regression analysis, which is very important to assess the independent predictors of awareness/usage more accurately. Clarify how the non-response rate can affect generalizability. 2. Results/ 2.1. The results are fair, they should cover all aspects of the study. The predictors such as age, title and independent variables can be reanalyzed using regression analysis. 2.2. I suggest to add another Tables showing the regression analysis and predictors with crude and adjusted odd ratios. 2.3. Provide confidence intervals (95%) in results for more strong interpretation. 3. Discussion: It is well written; I have some comments: 3.1. Expand the comparison with previous studies on the sample title 3.2. Support the limitations section by highlighting the limitation of low sample size. ****** what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files. If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public. Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy..--> Reviewer #1: Yes:Saadika KhanSaadika KhanSaadika KhanSaadika Khan Reviewer #2: Yes:Moawia Bushra GameraddinMoawia Bushra GameraddinMoawia Bushra GameraddinMoawia Bushra Gameraddin ******** [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 . 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 . 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 . 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.. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step. Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: PONE-D-25-32213.pdf Attachment Submitted filename: report PONE-D-25.pdf https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0346591.r001
Revision 1
29 Nov 2025 Author Response Dear Editor, We would like to express our sincere gratitude to you and the reviewers for giving us the opportunity to improve our manuscript. Encouraged by your decision letter, we have thoroughly revised the original manuscript and are pleased to submit the updated version for your reconsideration. The attached document, titled 'POINT BY POINT RESPONSE', provides detailed responses to all reviewer comments, addressing each query individually. In addition, we have uploaded the fully revised manuscript as a separate file titled ‘Revised Manuscript with Track Changes’, in which all modifications are clearly marked in red. We would be grateful if you could reconsider our revised manuscript for publication in PLOS ONE. With best regards, Sincerely yours, Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: POINT BY POINT RESPONSE.pdf https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0346591.r002
18 Feb 2026 Decision Letter - Prita Abhay Dhaimade, Editor Dear Dr. Ozcan Kucuk, 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. Following peer review, your manuscript is recommended for publication subject to minor revisions. Please address the reviewer comments as detailed in the attached report by reviewer 4. Please submit your revised manuscript by Apr 04 2026 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file. A letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'. A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'. An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'. If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at . Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at . Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at . Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.... We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript. Kind regards, Prita Abhay Dhaimade Academic Editor PLOS One Journal Requirements: 1. If the reviewer comments include a recommendation to cite specific previously published works, please review and evaluate these publications to determine whether they are relevant and should be cited. There is no requirement to cite these works unless the editor has indicated otherwise. 2. Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice. [Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.] Reviewers' comments: Reviewer's Responses to Questions Comments to the Author Reviewer #3: All comments have been addressed Reviewer #4: (No Response) ******** 2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions??> Reviewer #3: Yes Reviewer #4: Yes ****** 3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? -->?> Reviewer #3: Yes Reviewer #4: 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.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 #3: Yes Reviewer #4: Yes ****** 5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English??> Reviewer #3: Yes Reviewer #4: Yes ****** Reviewer #3: Thank you for your hardwork, The article is quite concise, the methods and result well laid out and the discussion are well-tailored. Reviewer #4: The manuscript "Knowledge, Awareness and Attitude among Practicing Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeons on Tele-Dentistry: A Cross-Sectional Survey" is a well-written contribution and seems to address a relevant public health issue. It has however some important limitations, mostly related to lack of representativeness of the studied sample. To investigate the perceptions of modern technologies in this group (maxillofacial surgeons), one would have to reach both the digitally competent, younger generation of surgeons, and the older, less technically savvy professionals. Sending an email survey, even with multiple reminders, resulted in a very low response proportion, with responses mostly from those who are willing to complete a questionnaire online, who are most likely more supportive of modern digital technologies. These limitations are correctly addressed in the limitations section. I therefore do not have any major suggestions for the revision, other than recommending a different study design (qualitative study, mixed-methods or a survey with the selection of subjects and data collection method better adapted to the target population). Minor issues: - The title is difficult to understand. Maybe the authors could consider replacing "on" to "towards" - this will make it easier to understand what attitudes were investigated. - Line 116 - "This cross-sectional study" (remove "a") - Line 168 - In the word "Intention" there seem to be a Turkish letter. - Line 182 - Instead "The majority of", please use "Most" - Line 183 - The % should be placed after the number ****** what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files. If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public. Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy..--> Reviewer #3: 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.] To ensure your figures meet our technical requirements, please review our figure guidelines: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/figures You may also use PLOS’s free figure tool, NAAS, to help you prepare publication quality figures: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/figures#loc-tools-for-figure-preparation. NAAS will assess whether your figures meet our technical requirements by comparing each figure against our figure specifications. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0346591.r003
Revision 2
21 Feb 2026 Author Response Manuscript Title: Knowledge, Awareness and Attitude among Practicing Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeons on Tele-Dentistry: A Cross-Sectional Survey (Revised Manuscript Title: Knowledge, Awareness and Attitude among Practicing Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeons towards Tele-Dentistry: A Cross-Sectional Survey) Manuscript Number: PONE-D-25-32213 Minor Revision Reviewer 3 Comments Thank you for your hardwork, The article is quite concise, the methods and result well laid out and the discussion are well-tailored. Our response: We sincerely thank the reviewer for their constructive and encouraging feedback. We are grateful for their positive evaluation of the clarity and organization of our methodology, results, and discussion sections. Reviewer 4 Comments The manuscript "Knowledge, Awareness and Attitude among Practicing Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeons on Tele-Dentistry: A Cross-Sectional Survey" is a well-written contribution and seems to address a relevant public health issue. It has however some important limitations, mostly related to lack of representativeness of the studied sample. To investigate the perceptions of modern technologies in this group (maxillofacial surgeons), one would have to reach both the digitally competent, younger generation of surgeons, and the older, less technically savvy professionals. Sending an email survey, even with multiple reminders, resulted in a very low response proportion, with responses mostly from those who are willing to complete a questionnaire online, who are most likely more supportive of modern digital technologies. These limitations are correctly addressed in the limitations section. I therefore do not have any major suggestions for the revision, other than recommending a different study design (qualitative study, mixed-methods or a survey with the selection of subjects and data collection method better adapted to the target population). Minor issues: - The title is difficult to understand. Maybe the authors could consider replacing "on" to "towards" - this will make it easier to understand what attitudes were investigated. - Line 116 - "This cross-sectional study" (remove "a") - Line 168 - In the word "Intention" there seem to be a Turkish letter. - Line 182 - Instead "The majority of", please use "Most" - Line 183 - The % should be placed after the number Our response: We sincerely thank the reviewer for their positive and constructive evaluation of our manuscript. We fully agree with the concerns raised regarding the representativeness of the sample and the potential response bias inherent to email-based surveys. As appropriately noted, these limitations have been addressed in the limitations section of the manuscript. We also appreciate the suggestion regarding alternative study designs (qualitative or mixed-methods approaches), which we will carefully consider in our future research. Minor Issues: Comment 1 (Title): The title is difficult to understand. Maybe the authors could consider replacing "on" to "towards". Our response: Thank you for this helpful suggestion. The title has been revised accordingly and now reads: "Knowledge, Awareness and Attitude among Practicing Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeons towards Tele-Dentistry: A Cross-Sectional Survey." Comment 2 (Line 116): "This cross-sectional study" (remove "a"). Our response: We thank the reviewer for this careful observation. The extra "a" has been removed. Comment 3 (Line 168): In the word "Intention" there seem to be a Turkish letter. Our response: We apologize for this typographical error. The Turkish character (İ) has been replaced with the standard English letter "I". Comment 4 (Line 182): Instead "The majority of", please use "Most". Our response: Thank you for this helpful suggestion. “The majority of” has been replaced with “Most” as recommended. Comment 5 (Line 183): The % should be placed after the number. Our response: Thank you for pointing this out. The percentage formatting has been corrected throughout the manuscript. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0346591.r004
22 Mar 2026 Decision Letter - Prita Abhay Dhaimade, Editor Knowledge, Awareness and Attitude among Practicing Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeons towards Tele-Dentistry: A Cross-Sectional Survey PONE-D-25-32213R2 Dear Dr. Ozcan Kucuk, We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements. Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication. An invoice will be generated when your article is formally accepted. Please note, if your institution has a publishing partnership with PLOS and your article meets the relevant criteria, all or part of your publication costs will be covered. Please make sure your user information is up-to-date by logging into Editorial Manager at Editorial Manager® and clicking the ‘Update My Information' link at the top of the page. For questions related to billing, please contact and clicking the ‘Update My Information' link at the top of the page. For questions related to billing, please contact and clicking the ‘Update My Information' link at the top of the page. For questions related to billing, please contact and clicking the ‘Update My Information' link at the top of the page. For questions related to billing, please contact billing support.... If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org. Kind regards, Prita Abhay Dhaimade Academic Editor PLOS One Additional Editor Comments (optional): 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 requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.--> Reviewer #4: Yes ****** 5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English??> Reviewer #4: Yes ****** Reviewer #4: My few comments have been addressed and the text is clear. Congratulations on the well written manuscript. ****** what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files. If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public. Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy..--> Reviewer #4: No ******** https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0346591.r005
Formally Accepted
Acceptance Letter - Prita Abhay Dhaimade, Editor PONE-D-25-32213R2 PLOS One Dear Dr. Ozcan Kucuk, 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. Prita Abhay Dhaimade Academic Editor PLOS One https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0346591.r006

Open letter on the publication of peer review reports

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

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

Learn more at ASAPbio .