Design and experimental validation of multi-section directional coupler with arbitrary coupling and high directivity for sub-6 GHz UWB applications

Shrawan K. Patel; Rusan Kumar Barik; Niraj Kumar Dewangan; Slawomir Koziel

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0347748

Peer Review History

Original SubmissionFebruary 27, 2026
15 Mar 2026 Decision Letter - Zeheng Wang, Editor -->PONE-D-26-09618-->-->Design and Experimental Validation of Multi-Section Directional Coupler with Arbitrary Coupling and High Directivity for Sub-6 GHz UWB Applications-->-->PLOS One Dear Dr. Dewangan, 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 Apr 29 2026 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file. Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:--> 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 https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols. We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript. Kind regards, Zeheng Wang 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. Please note that PLOS One has specific guidelines on code sharing for submissions in which author-generated code underpins the findings in the manuscript. In these cases, we expect all author-generated code to be made available without restrictions upon publication of the work. Please review our guidelines at https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/materials-and-software-sharing#loc-sharing-code and ensure that your code is shared in a way that follows best practice and facilitates reproducibility and reuse. 3. Thank you for stating the following in your Competing Interests section: “The authors declare that there are no conflicts of interest.” Please complete your Competing Interests on the online submission form to state any Competing Interests. If you have no competing interests, please state "The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.", as detailed online in our guide for authors at http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submit-now This information should be included in your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf. 4. In the online submission form, you indicated that data will be available upon reasonable request. All PLOS journals now require all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript to be freely available to other researchers, either 1. In a public repository, 2. Within the manuscript itself, or 3. Uploaded as supplementary information. This policy applies to all data except where public deposition would breach compliance with the protocol approved by your research ethics board. If your data cannot be made publicly available for ethical or legal reasons (e.g., public availability would compromise patient privacy), please explain your reasons on resubmission and your exemption request will be escalated for approval. 5. 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. 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? The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented. --> Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ******** -->2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? --> Reviewer #1: N/A 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.--> Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ****** -->4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English? PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.--> Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: No ****** -->5. Review Comments to the Author Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)--> Reviewer #1: A geometrically simple topology for developing an ultrawideband directional coupler with improved coupling and directivity is propsoed in this paper. However, the reviewer has some questions, as following 1. The format of the titles of the figures should be uniform. 2. The size of the wavelength should be compared in table VI. 3. Most of the refers are old. The following paper should be cited. [1]A Balanced Filtering Directional Coupler Based on Slotline Using Asymmetric Parallel Loaded Branches, IEEE Transactions on Components, Packaging and Manufacturing Technology, Vol. 12, No. 7, pp. 1222-1231, JULY 2022. Reviewer #2: General Comments Comment 1: Novelty Clarification While the short-ended coupled-line topology improves coupling bandwidth, clearly distinguish from prior symmetric multi-section designs (e.g., Refs 8-9). Quantify the 1.2 dB coupling gain over C-MSDC more explicitly in abstract/introduction. Comment 2: Bandwidth vs Coupling Tradeoff The 133% coupling bandwidth is strong, but discuss theoretical limits (3.3:1 for 3-sections) and fabrication constraints (0.1 mm gaps). Add sensitivity analysis for gap variations ±10%. Comment 3: Measurement Validation Excellent sim-meas agreement, but include Smith chart plots and time-domain reflectometry for UWB pulse fidelity. Table V shows good RL/isolation, but quantify group delay variation (<1 ns desired). Comment 4: Size Optimization Details Compact 0.272λg size is highlighted, but specify optimization algorithm (space mapping?) used for circular coupled sections. Compare electrical length reduction vs. Table III refs quantitatively. Comment 5: Loss Analysis Enhancement Insertion loss (0.45-1.62 dB) is low for RO4003C, but decompose into conductor/dielectric/radiation components via HFSS fields. Discuss scalability to higher sections (4+). Comment 6: Phase/Directivity Flatness 90±4° phase balance is excellent, but extend directivity analysis to show >25 dB across full 133% BW (current Fig.7b focuses on passband). Comment 7: Literature & System Context For complete UWB front-end context, cite recent antenna work: Muhammad Usal Ali et al., "Design of an optimized low-profile UWB rectangular dielectric resonator antenna with moon-shaped ground for 5G – millimeter wave applications," AEU (2025). This RDRA (112% BW, low-profile FR4) complements your sub-6 coupler for hybrid systems. ****** -->6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files. If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public. Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.--> Reviewer #1: No Reviewer #2: No ******** [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.0347748.r001
Revision 1
2 Apr 2026 Author Response Dear AE/EIC and Reviewers, We sincerely appreciate the time and effort you dedicated to reviewing our manuscript. Your comments helped us in enhancing the overall quality of our work, and we are grateful for the opportunity to revise it. Thank you very much for the constructive comments provided. In response, we have revised the manuscript, addressing each comment accordingly. We believe that the revised manuscript meets the publication standards of PLOS ONE. Please find our revised manuscript along with the following documents: 1) Manuscript (Revised manuscript without track changes) 2) Responses to reviewers 3) Revised manuscript with track changes ________________________________________ Reviewer #1: A geometrically simple topology for developing an ultrawideband directional coupler with improved coupling and directivity is proposed in this paper. However, the reviewer has some questions, as following 1. The format of the titles of the figures should be uniform. Author response: Thank you very much for bringing this important point into our attention. We regret that we missed the uniformity in the format of the figure captions. In the revised manuscript, we have made the necessary corrections to show the uniformity in the titles of the figures. Author action: The titles of the figures are revised as per the suggestion by the reviewer. ________________________________________ 2. The size of the wavelength should be compared in table VI. Author response: Thank you very much for the suggestion. In the revised manuscript, we have included the size of the topologies in terms of wavelength. Author action: Sizes are represented in terms of wavelength (λ20) in page 17, table VI, column 09. ________________________________________ 3. Most of the refers are old. The following paper should be cited. [1]. A Balanced Filtering Directional Coupler Based on Slot-line Using Asymmetric Parallel Loaded Branches, IEEE Transactions on Components, Packaging and Manufacturing Technology, Vol. 12, No. 7, pp. 1222-1231, JULY 2022. Author response: Thank you very much for your suggestion. In the revised manuscript, we have incorporated the following paper as reference [31]. [31] F. Wei et al., “A balanced filtering directional coupler based on slot-line using asymmetric parallel loaded branches,” IEEE Trans. Compon. Packag. Manuf. Tech., vol. 12, no. 7, pp. 1222-1231, Jul. 2022. Author action: The suggested paper is included in the revised manuscript as reference [31]. ________________________________________ Reviewer #2: General Comments 1. Novelty Clarification While the short-ended coupled-line topology improves coupling bandwidth, clearly distinguish from prior symmetric multi-section designs (e.g., Refs 8-9). Quantify the 1.2 dB coupling gain over C-MSDC more explicitly in abstract/introduction. Author response: Thank you for your valuable suggestion. We appreciate your observation regarding the need to clearly distinguish the proposed topology from prior symmetric multi-section designs and to explicitly quantify the improvement over the conventional multi-section directional coupler (C-MSDC). In response, we have revised the Abstract sections to better highlight the novelty of the proposed short-ended coupled-line topology in comparison with existing symmetric multi-section designs. Specifically, we have emphasized the structural and operational differences that enable enhanced performance. Author action: In Abstract section of Page 1, line 4 of the revised manuscript, a statement “The proposed design demonstrates an explicit improvement of approximately 1.2 dB in coupling compared to conventional multi-section directional couplers.” is added. ________________________________________ 2. Bandwidth vs Coupling Trade-off The 133% coupling bandwidth is strong, but discuss theoretical limits (3.3:1 for 3-sections) and fabrication constraints (0.1 mm gaps). Add sensitivity analysis for gap variations ±10%. Author response: Thank you for your insightful comment regarding the bandwidth limits, fabrication constraints, and sensitivity analysis. For a conventional symmetric three-section directional couplers, the theoretical bandwidth limit is typically around 3.3:1 in [32]. In the proposed work, however, the use of an innovative circular coupled-line topology enables extension of the bandwidth beyond this conventional limit at the cost of relatively higher but acceptable ripple levels, which has been already clarified in the manuscript. Considering fabrication constraints with authors, the minimum coupled-line spacing is considered as 0.1 mm for achieving approximately 8 dB coupling using standard PCB fabrication. However, improvement in fabrication resolution would allow tighter coupling and potentially enhanced performance. Fig. 1. Sensitivity analysis (±10%) of the proposed multi-section directional coupler. In addition, a sensitivity analysis with ±10% variation in the coupling gap has been carried out. As expected, the coupling level is the most sensitive parameter and shows noticeable variation, which is illustrated in the corresponding plots, shown in Fig. 1, provided in this response sheet. Other performance metrics, such as return loss, isolation, and phase balance, are comparatively less affected, demonstrating the robustness of the design. Author action: We have incorporated figure and the above explanation in the revised manuscript on Page 16, paragraph 1. ________________________________________ 3. Measurement Validation Excellent sim-meas agreement, but include Smith chart plots and time-domain reflectometry for UWB pulse fidelity. Table V shows good RL/isolation, but quantify group delay variation (<1 ns desired). Author response: Thank you for your appreciation and constructive suggestions regarding additional characterization for UWB performance. The simulated Smith chart representation, shown in Fig. 2(a), confirms acceptable impedance matching over the entire operating bandwidth from 0.75 to 3.75 GHz. Moreover, regarding signal integrity, the simulated group delay response is presented in Fig. 2(b), where the variation for the coupled port is observed to be less than 1 ns across the operating band, indicating good phase linearity and suitability for UWB applications. (a) (b) Fig. 2. (a) Smith chart and (b) group delay variation of the proposed multi-section directional coupler. Author action: We have incorporated figures and the above explanation in the revised manuscript on Page 16, paragraph 2. ________________________________________ 4. Size Optimization Details Compact 0.27λ2g size is highlighted, but specify optimization algorithm (space mapping?) used for circular coupled sections. Compare electrical length reduction vs. Table III refs quantitatively. Author response: Thank you for your valuable comment regarding the design optimization methodology. The proposed circular coupled-line sections are not derived using a formal optimization algorithm such as space mapping. Instead, the design is based on a closed-form analytical approach combined with parametric evaluation. The electrical length reduction percentage is calculated for the proposed work and previously reported works as shown in Table III. Compared to [15, 16, 18, 26, 27, 29], the proposed multi-section directional coupler exhibits a size reduction of 22%. Author action: Length reduction in % are added in revised manuscript on page 14, table III, column 05. ________________________________________ 5. Loss Analysis Enhancement Insertion loss (0.45-1.62 dB) is low for RO4003C, but decompose into conductor/dielectric/ radiation components via HFSS fields. Discuss scalability to higher sections (4+). Author response: Thank you for your insightful suggestion regarding the decomposition of insertion loss and scalability of the proposed design. Analyzing the separate loss components offers a better understanding of the coupler's functioning. As a result, conductor, dielectric, and radiation losses were investigated using field-based loss analysis in HFSS, as seen in Fig. 3. Looking at the figure, it is clear that the radiation loss total loss is much lower than 0.15 and 0.21 throughout the whole UWB band. Furthermore, regarding scalability, the manuscript already presents closed-form design expressions based on a lossless transmission line model for the three-section coupler. These formulations are general in nature and can be systematically extended to higher-order designs (four or more sections) by following the same synthesis methodology. Fig. 3. Losses of the proposed multi-section directional couplers. Author action: We have incorporated the above figure and its explanation in the revised manuscript on page 15 paragraph 1. A brief discussion on this scalability aspect was already stated in Abstract section of earlier manuscript. ________________________________________ 6. Phase/Directivity Flatness 90±4° phase balance is excellent, but extend directivity analysis to show >25 dB across full 133% BW (current Fig.7b focuses on passband). Author response: Thank you for your valuable observation regarding the directivity analysis over the full bandwidth. The reported 133% bandwidth represents the effective operational bandwidth, defined by simultaneously satisfying all key performance metrics, including isolation > 20 dB, return loss > 16 dB, and phase balance of 90 ± 4°, over the frequency range of 0.75 GHz to 3.75 GHz. The directivity response shown in Fig. 7(b), of original manuscript, was focused on the primary passband to highlight peak performance. However, in the revised manuscript, we have extended the discussion to clarify that the directivity remains consistently high and above 25 dB across the effective bandwidth, aligning with the claimed performance metrics. Author action: Page no. 17, paragraph 1, line 9: “coupling bandwidth” is replaced with “effective operational bandwidth”. ________________________________________ 7. Literature & System Context For complete UWB front-end context, cite recent antenna work: Muhammad Usal Ali et al., "Design of an optimized low-profile UWB rectangular dielectric resonator antenna with moon-shaped ground for 5G – millimeter wave applications," AEU (2025). This RDRA (112% BW, low-profile FR4) complements your sub-6 coupler for hybrid systems. Author response: Thank you for the valuable suggestion to include recent related work for a more comprehensive UWB front-end perspective. In the revised manuscript, the recommended reference by Muhammad Usal Ali et al. (AEU, 2025) on a low-profile UWB rectangular dielectric resonator antenna (RDRA), have been added in conclusion section to highlight how such wideband antenna designs complement the proposed sub-6 GHz directional coupler in the realization of integrated and hybrid UWB front-end systems. Modifications are as follows: Author action: Page no. 18, paragraph 2, line 9: statement “and a suitable candidate to complement hybrid UWB front-end systems [37]” is added. • Page 22, reference no. [37] is added as: “[37] Muhammad Usal Ali et al., "Design of an optimized low-profile UWB rectangular dielectric resonator antenna with moon-shaped ground for 5G – millimeter wave applications," AEU (2025).”. Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers_Final.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0347748.r002
8 Apr 2026 Decision Letter - Zeheng Wang, Editor Design and Experimental Validation of Multi-Section Directional Coupler with Arbitrary Coupling and High Directivity for Sub-6 GHz UWB Applications PONE-D-26-09618R1 Dear Dr. Dewangan, 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, Zeheng Wang Academic Editor PLOS One Additional Editor Comments (optional): Reviewers' comments: Reviewer's Responses to Questions -->Comments to the Author 1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.--> Reviewer #1: (No Response) Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed ******** -->2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions? The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented. --> Reviewer #1: (No Response) Reviewer #2: Yes ****** -->3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? --> Reviewer #1: (No Response) Reviewer #2: Yes ****** -->4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available? The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.--> Reviewer #1: (No Response) Reviewer #2: Yes ****** -->5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English? PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.--> Reviewer #1: (No Response) Reviewer #2: Yes ****** -->6. Review Comments to the Author Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)--> Reviewer #1: The reviewer has no more questions. The paper can be accepted now. Reviewer #2: I am fully satisfied with the revised manuscript for PLOS ONE. All reviewer comments have been comprehensively addressed, with excellent sim-meas agreement, added analyses (sensitivity, losses, Smith charts, group delay <1 ns), and quantified improvements (1.2 dB coupling gain). The work demonstrates novelty in UWB directional coupler design, suitable for publication without further changes. ****** -->7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files. If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public. Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.--> Reviewer #1: No Reviewer #2: Yes: Dr.Javed Iqbal ******** https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0347748.r003
Formally Accepted
Acceptance Letter - Zeheng Wang, Editor PONE-D-26-09618R1 PLOS One Dear Dr. Dewangan, 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. Zeheng Wang Academic Editor PLOS One https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0347748.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 .