Plasma-activated water: Mechanism and treatment duration for postharvest disease control and shelf-life enhancement of mango under ambient storage

Mst. Habiba Tamanna; Showdia Sarmin; Umme Afroza Irin; Mst. Khadiza Khatun; Mamunur Rashid Talukder; Md. Mahmodol Hasan

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0347546

Peer Review History

Original SubmissionOctober 22, 2025
21 Jan 2026 Decision Letter - Guadalupe Nevárez-Moorillón, Editor Dear Dr. Hasan, Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process. Please submit your revised manuscript by Mar 07 2026 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file. A letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'. A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'. An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'. If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter. If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at . Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at . Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at . Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.... We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript. Kind regards, Guadalupe Virginia Nevárez-Moorillón, 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 https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf 2. We note that your Data Availability Statement is currently as follows: All relevant data are within the manuscript and in Supporting Information files. Please confirm at this time whether or not your submission contains all raw data required to replicate the results of your study. Authors must share the “minimal data set” for their submission. PLOS defines the minimal data set to consist of the data required to replicate all study findings reported in the article, as well as related metadata and methods (https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-minimal-data-set-definition). For example, authors should submit the following data: - The values behind the means, standard deviations and other measures reported; - The values used to build graphs; - The points extracted from images for analysis. Authors do not need to submit their entire data set if only a portion of the data was used in the reported study. If your submission does not contain these data, please either upload them as Supporting Information files or deposit them to a stable, public repository and provide us with the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers. For a list of recommended repositories, please see https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/recommended-repositories. If there are ethical or legal restrictions on sharing a de-identified data set, please explain them in detail (e.g., data contain potentially sensitive information, data are owned by a third-party organization, etc.) and who has imposed them (e.g., an ethics committee). Please also provide contact information for a data access committee, ethics committee, or other institutional body to which data requests may be sent. If data are owned by a third party, please indicate how others may request data access. 3. Please ensure that you refer to Figure 7 and 8 in your text as, if accepted, production will need this reference to link the reader to the figure. 4. 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: the paper entitled 'Innovative use of plasma-activated water for sustainable post-harvest disease control and shelf-life enhancement in mango' is dealing with an important topic which is he shelf-life of mango fruits The paper is generally fine I have some comments arranged by section to improve the quality and reader quality of the manuscript 1/Abstract: the section is fine summarizes the core findings but lacks further numerical data from the experiment 2/Introduction: The section provides good context on mango importance as well as the main postharvest disease problems linked to this crop L74; kindly correct the sentence (There are a very few reports have been focused on the effects of plasma) 3/Materials and methods: the section is reproducible and written adequately adequately the disease incidence was inspected every day according to the authors by the table says at selected days explain why? 4/ Results and discussion: Extensive data is presented, and the discussion attempts to link results to literature and propose mechanisms. 5/Conclusion: well written section Reviewer #2: Revise the title to specify plasma activated water mechanism, treatment duration, and explicitly indicate mango storage conditions. The abstract lacks quantitative outcomes for disease reduction, shelf life extension, firmness, and vitamin C changes; include key numerical values. Introduction is descriptive but unfocused; clearly frame the postharvest disease control problem with a defined technological limitation. Literature review is outdated and regional; incorporate recent high impact PAW postharvest studies for comparative scientific context. Research gap is weakly articulated; explicitly state what mechanistic or applied knowledge PAW adds beyond existing plasma studies. Objectives are broad and repetitive; reformulate into specific, measurable outcomes linked to disease, quality, and storage duration. No hypothesis is stated; authors must clearly define testable hypotheses regarding PAW effects on pathogens and fruit physiology. Experimental design lacks justification for sample size and replication; provide power rationale or cite comparable postharvest studies. Plasma reactor description is excessive yet incomplete; include electrical parameters, discharge power, and PAW physicochemical characterization. Chemical control selection is unjustified; explain why this fungicide was chosen and discuss regulatory relevance for comparison. Several quality attributes are visually assessed; subjective evaluations require instrumental validation or must be clearly qualified. Methods cite AOAC protocols without procedural detail; include sample preparation, replication, and calibration information explicitly. Firmness measured by hand feeling is unacceptable; replace with instrumental texture analysis or justify methodological limitations. Statistical analysis lacks detail; report exact p values, assumptions testing, and justification for using DMRT. Results largely restate tables; strengthen interpretation by linking reductions in disease incidence to plasma induced mechanisms. Discussion selectively cites supportive literature; critically compare PAW efficacy against chemical treatment and oxygen plasma results. Claims regarding ethylene suppression are speculative; no ethylene or respiration measurements were conducted to support conclusions. Vitamin C degradation contradicts quality improvement claims; authors must reconcile this tradeoff explicitly in discussion. Conclusion overstates applicability; acknowledge laboratory scale limitations and absence of industrial feasibility assessment. ****** 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: Dr. Riadh IlahyDr. Riadh IlahyDr. Riadh IlahyDr. Riadh Ilahy Reviewer #2: 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.0347546.r001
Revision 1
11 Mar 2026 Author Response Response to the Editor and Reviewers We sincerely thank the Editor and Reviewers for their careful evaluation of our manuscript entitled with "Innovative use of plasma-activated water for sustainable post-harvest disease control and shelf-life enhancement in mango". We appreciate their constructive comments, which have significantly improved the clarity and scientific quality of the manuscript. Please see responses to referees below. All comments have been addressed point by point. Changes in the manuscript are highlighted in red color and page and line numbers are provided to help locate changed text and refer to page and line numbers in the original submission (as sent in the editor’s email), "[PONE-D-25-57271].pdf " Response to Journal Requirements Requirement 1: PLOS ONE's style and file naming Response: We thank the editor for the guidance. The manuscript has been reformatted according to the PLOS ONE style templates for the main body and title_ authors_ affiliations. Requirement 2: Data Availability Statement and minimal data set Response: All relevant data are within the manuscript and in Supporting Information files. We confirm that our revised submission now includes the complete minimal dataset (supporting information) required to replicate all results reported in the manuscript. “All raw data underlying the findings of this study, including values behind means and figures, are provided as Supporting Information files.” There are no ethical or legal restrictions on data sharing. Requirement 3: Reference to Figures 7 and 8 Response: We have now clearly cited Figures 7 and 8 as “Figs 5 and 6”in the Results and Discussion section where physico-chemical properties of mangos are described. (Page 24, Line 408) Requirement 4: Recommended citations Response: There is no requirement to cite recommended works. 5. Review Comments to the Author Response: Point-by-point responses are provided below: Reviewer#1 Reviewers Questions Answers 1. Abstract: the section is fine summarizes the core findings but lacks further numerical data from the experiment Response 1.0 We are grateful for this for this valuable comment. The Abstract has been revised to include key quantitative results on disease reduction, shelf-life extension, firmness retention, and vitamin C changes for both mango varieties. (Page2-3, Lines 31-44 ) 2. Comment 1.1. Introduction: The section provides good context on mango importance as well as the main postharvest disease problems linked to this crop. L74; kindly correct the sentence (There are a very few reports have been focused on the effects of plasma). Response 1.1. The sentence has been corrected to "Moreover, very limited information is available regarding the effects of PAW on the management of anthracnose and stem end rot, and physicochemical quality attributes of mango during storage” (Page 5, Lines 89-91). 3. Comment 1.2. Materials and methods: the section is reproducible and written adequately the disease incidence was inspected every day according to the authors by the table says at selected days explain why? Response 1.2. We appreciate this significant statement. Disease symptoms were visually observed every day; however, quantitative data were recorded at selected days (6th-10th day) because disease symptoms were not detectable before this period. This clarification has now been added to the Materials and Methods section. “Disease incidence was recorded regularly to monitor the development of infection during storage and to accurately determine the onset of visible symptoms.” (Page 9, Lines 183–185) 4. Comment 1.3. Results and discussion: Extensive data is presented, and the discussion attempts to link results to literature and propose mechanisms. Response 1.3. We thank the reviewer for this positive assessment. Results and Discussion section has been strengthened by improving interpretation and linking findings more clearly with plasma-induced antimicrobial mechanisms. 5. Comment 1.4. Conclusion: well written section Response 1.4. We thank the reviewer for this encouraging comment. Reviewer#2 1. 2.1 . Revise the title to specify plasma activated water mechanism, treatment duration, and explicitly indicate mango storage conditions. The revised title is “Plasma-activated water: Mechanism and treatment duration for postharvest disease control and shelf-life enhancement of mango under ambient storage” 2. 2.2 . The abstract lacks quantitative outcomes for disease reduction, shelf life extension, firmness, and vitamin C changes; include key numerical values. Response 2.1. Key numerical values for disease reduction, shelf-life extension, firmness degradation, TSS, and vitamin C have been added to the Abstract. (Page2-3, Lines 30-43) 3. 2.2 Introduction is descriptive but unfocused; clearly frame the postharvest disease control problem with a defined technological limitation. Response 2.2. The Introduction section has been revised and reorganized to clearly frame the problem of postharvest disease control by emphasizing the technological limitations of current methods. Furthermore, the need for environmentally friendly alternatives has been highlighted, with particular focus on the potential application of plasma-activated water (PAW) as a sustainable postharvest disease management technology. Comment 2.3. Literature review is outdated and regional; incorporate recent high impact PAW postharvest studies for comparative scientific context. Response 2.3. Recent high-impact PAW studies (2017–2025) have been added to the Introduction and Discussion sections to provide updated comparative scientific context. Comment 2.4. Research gap is weakly articulated; explicitly state what mechanistic or applied knowledge PAW adds beyond existing plasma studies. Response 2.4. The research gap has now been explicitly stated as: “Although the previous investigations have reported disease reduction in fruits in other countries, to the best of our knowledge, no comprehensive studies have assessed using PAW as a post-harvest treatment for mango in Bangladesh, where disease outbreak and post-harvest losses are predominantly high.” (Page 4-5, Lines 84-87) Comment 2.5. Objectives are broad and repetitive; reformulate into specific, measurable outcomes linked to disease, quality, and storage duration. Response 2.5. Objectives have been reformulated into specific, measurable outcomes linked into disease, quality, and storage duration. Comment 2.6. No hypothesis is stated; authors must clearly define testable hypotheses regarding PAW effects on pathogens and fruit physiology. Response 2.6. Thank you for the comment. Now the hypothesis has been stated as: “We hypothesize that PAW treatment could significantly reduce disease incidence in mango without causing adverse effects during storage”. (Page 5, Lines 91-93). Comment 2.7. Experimental design lacks justification for sample size and replication; provide power rationale or cite comparable postharvest studies. Response 2.7. We are grateful to the reviewer for this comment. Sample size and replication have now been justified as: “This experiment was laid out using completely randomized design (CRD), in which treatments were randomly assigned to homogeneous experimental units. Under laboratory conditions, the experimental units were homogenous, therefore, blocking was unnecessary. For this reason, the CRD was appropriate for this experiment.” (Page 6, Lines 107-110). Comment 2.8. Plasma reactor description is excessive yet incomplete; include electrical parameters, discharge power, and PAW physicochemical characterization. Response 2.8. Now the section has been improved giving information regarding electrical parameters, discharge power, and PAW physicochemical characterization. (Page 7-8 and 14, Lines 140-151 and 270-280). Comment 2.9. Chemical control selection is unjustified; explain why this fungicide was chosen and discuss regulatory relevance for comparison. Response 2.9. Justification of chemical selection and its regulatory relevance have been added. (Page 8, Lines 151-158). Comment 2.10. Several quality attributes (taste, color, maturity stage) are visually assessed; subjective evaluations require instrumental validation or must be clearly qualified. Response 2.10. The respective parameters were assessed visually. Although the non-instrumental technique, may introduce some operator variability and limitations in measurement precision, assessments were performed by the same trained evaluator throughout the experiment to maintain consistency. Comment 2.11. Methods cite AOAC protocols without procedural detail; include sample preparation, replication, and calibration information explicitly. Response 2.11. Detailed procedures for sample preparation, replication, and calibration have now been added for all AOAC-based analysis. Method of mineral content analysis has also been added. (Page 11-12, Lines 207-243). Comment 2.12. Firmness measured by hand feeling is unacceptable; replace with instrumental texture analysis or justify methodological limitations. The firmness of mangoes was evaluated using the hand-feel method with a predefined numerical grading scale. This approach has also been adopted by other researchers. Although the non-instrumental technique, may introduce some operator variability and limitations in measurement precision, assessments were performed by the same trained evaluator throughout the experiment to maintain consistency. (Page 13, Lines 249-252). Comment 2.13. Statistical analysis lacks detail; report exact p values, assumptions testing, and justification for using DMRT. Response 2.13. The Statistical analysis section has been expanded to ANOVA assumptions, p-values and justification for using DMRT. (Page 13, Lines 264-267). Comment 2.14. Results largely restate tables; strengthen interpretation by linking reductions in disease incidence to plasma induced mechanisms. Response 2.14. The Results and Discussion sections have been revised to emphasize interpretation and plasma-induced mechanisms. Comment 2.15. Discussion selectively cites supportive literature; critically compare PAW efficacy against chemical treatment and oxygen plasma results. Response 2.15. Critical comparisons between PAW, oxygen plasma, and chemical fungicide treatments have been added. Line 287-292 Comment 2.16. Claims regarding ethylene suppression are speculative; no ethylene or respiration measurements were conducted to support conclusions. Response 2.16. Speculative claims have been removed and revised to state clearly that ethylene and respiration were not directly measured in this study. (Page 24, Lines 408-409). Comment 2.17. Vitamin C degradation contradicts quality improvement claims; authors must reconcile this tradeoff explicitly in discussion. Response 2.17. This trade-off is now explicitly discussed, explaining that PAW improves physicochemical quality while causing modest vitamin C loss and emphasizing optimization of treatment parameters. (Page 33, Lines 582-587 and 594-697). Comment 2.18. Conclusion overstates applicability; acknowledge laboratory scale limitations and absence of industrial feasibility assessment. Response 2.18. Thank you, reviewer, for the comment. The conclusion is now revised and the limitation of using PAW has been mentioned in the conclusion. (Page 34, Lines 613-621). We believe that all reviewer and editorial comments have been fully addressed and that the manuscript has been substantially improved. We sincerely thank the Editor and reviewers for their constructive feedback. Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers_R1.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0347546.r002
5 Apr 2026 Decision Letter - Guadalupe Nevárez-Moorillón, Editor Innovative use of plasma-activated water for sustainable post-harvest disease control and shelf-life enhancement in mango PONE-D-25-57271R1 Dear Dr. Hasan, 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, Guadalupe Virginia Nevárez-Moorillón, Ph.D. Academic Editor PLOS One Additional Editor Comments (optional): Reviewers' comments: Reviewer's Responses to Questions Comments to the Author Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed ******** 2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions??> Reviewer #1: Yes ****** 3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? -->?> Reviewer #1: 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 #1: Yes ****** 5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English??> Reviewer #1: Yes ****** Reviewer #1: The paper has been well revised. The comments were considered by the authors I think the paper is now more suitable for publication compared to the original version ****** 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: RIADH ILAHYRIADH ILAHYRIADH ILAHYRIADH ILAHY ******** https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0347546.r003
Formally Accepted
Acceptance Letter - Guadalupe Nevárez-Moorillón, Editor PONE-D-25-57271R1 PLOS One Dear Dr. Hasan, 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. Guadalupe Virginia Nevárez-Moorillón Academic Editor PLOS One https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0347546.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 .