Rigid versus flexible: The effect of destination revitalization policy on tourists’ travel behavioral intention

Wen Qin; Weilong Li; Yanli Peng; Juan Su

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0348289

Peer Review History

Original SubmissionAugust 22, 2025
8 Dec 2025 Decision Letter - Bifeng Zhu, Editor -->PONE-D-25-40512-->-->Rigid versus flexible: The effect of destination revitalization policy on tourists' travel behavioral intention-->-->PLOS One Dear Dr. Su, 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. Authors are recommended to make a more clear presentation and deep explanation. Please submit your revised manuscript by Jan 22 2026 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file. Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:--> A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'. A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'. An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'. If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter. If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols. We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript. Kind regards, Bifeng Zhu 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 the grant information you provided in the ‘Funding Information’ and ‘Financial Disclosure’ sections do not match. When you resubmit, please ensure that you provide the correct grant numbers for the awards you received for your study in the ‘Funding Information’ section. 3. Thank you for stating the following financial disclosure: “This study was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (No. 72362018; 42261042), General Project of Hunan Education Department, China (No. 21C0387), and Key Project of Research project on teaching reform in ordinary higher edu-cation institutions in Hunan Province, China (No. HNJG-20230688 ).” Please state what role the funders took in the study. If the funders had no role, please state: "The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript." If this statement is not correct you must amend it as needed. Please include this amended Role of Funder statement in your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf. 4. We note that your Data Availability Statement is currently as follows: “All relevant data are within the manuscript and its 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. 5. Please include your full ethics statement in the ‘Methods’ section of your manuscript file. In your statement, please include the full name of the IRB or ethics committee who approved or waived your study, as well as whether or not you obtained informed written or verbal consent. If consent was waived for your study, please include this information in your statement as well. 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: 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.--> 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: Yes ****** -->5. Review Comments to the Author Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)--> Reviewer #1: Thank you for allowing me to review the paper entitled “Rigid versus flexible: The effect of destination revitalization policy on tourists' travel behavioral intention" Here are some suggestions to improve the paper: 1. Originality: Does the paper contain new and significant information adequate to justify publication? 1. The current form of the abstract is not well written. Author should highlight the novelty and main aim of the study. Make sure it commences with a succinct statement of the primary aim of the study, highlighting the novelty it brings to the field. This should be followed by a concise description of the research methodology employed, including the analysis techniques utilized and details regarding the sample collection process. Finally, it should conclude with a brief summary of the key findings and the implications derived from them. It is essential to emphasize the unique contributions of this study. Only highlight the most significant findings and implications to maintain focus. 2. The introduction lacks a clear structure and focus. Please follow this suggested structure: (1) Summarize the existing issue together with its importance. (2) Explain how researchers should address the discovered areas that need further investigation. (3) The research gap must clearly relate to the existing issue. (4) The research benefits from critiquing these aspects that previous academic studies avoid. (5) Review relevant past studies. (6) Draw a contrast between this study and all related past research. (7) Clearly state the research objectives. (8) The paper details how it introduces beneficial concepts to academic literature. A properly organized introduction creates better clarity by establishing solid groundwork for the overall paper. 3. The issue is not explicitly explained and support with recent citations. 4. The authors fail to define their research gap with clarity and supporting evidence. The authors need to present a precise identification of the unaddressed areas in past research. All necessary arguments should be presented to validate the immediate need for addressing this gap. Provide a clear reasoning that demonstrates the study’s connection to contemporary conditions. 2. Relationship to Literature: Does the paper demonstrate an adequate understanding of the relevant literature in the field and cite an appropriate range of literature sources? Is any significant work ignored? 5. Should have a standalone section for underpinning theory. This is to explain how the theory supporting the proposed paths and model. To enhance the clarity and coherence of the research, I recommend the authors thoroughly explain how or any theory support the current study and each path. By elaborating on the theory's key concepts and demonstrating its relevance to the research topic, the authors can establish a stronger connection between the theoretical foundation and the study's objectives. 6. Author does not explain how the theory supporting the mediation paths and moderation paths. Please include this justification in the underpinning theory section. 7. A proper flow for literature review as follows: (1) underpinning theory, (2) hypotheses development and (3) proposed research model. 3. Methodology: Is the paper's argument built on an appropriate base of theory, concepts, or other ideas? Has the research or equivalent intellectual work on which the paper is based been well designed? Are the methods employed appropriate? 8. The research methodology is not well written. Should have two sub-sections: (1) Research procedure and samples and (2) research instruments. 9. Why there is a need to slit the study into five studies? 10. How do you test cause and effect relationship? 11. The authors should discuss the generalizability and representativeness of their sample in relation to the target population. Authors need to clearly explain how the chosen sample is intended to be representative of and reflective of the larger population. Any strategies employed to ensure a diverse and inclusive sample should also be highlighted. This will increase the credibility of the research findings and help readers understand the extent to which the results can be generalized to the broader population. 12. It is essential to provide a clear explanation of a sampling technique used in the study, along with the rationale for its selection. Why these techniques? The authors should describe how they utilized this sampling technique to select respondents for the survey, ensuring generalizability and representativeness towards the targeted population. By doing so, readers can better understand the methodological approach and the potential limitations associated with the sample selection. 13. Any selection criteria? 14. Any control variable included in this study? Why not as it could be one of the confounding variables? 15. The procedure of data collection needs to be elaborated further. The authors should explain in more detail how they collected the data, how they approached the respondents, and how they identified participants for the survey study. This explanation should be reasonable and logical, avoiding exaggerations and providing a clear account of the steps taken in the data collection process. 16. Did you translate the questionnaire to local language? If yes, please explain how it was done. 17. The research instrument section is not well written. Should refer to quality paper published in high impact journal on how to report the research instruments. 4. Results: Are results presented clearly and analysed appropriately? Do the conclusions adequately tie together the other elements of the paper? 18. The reporting is confusing. 19. For common method bias, I suggest using a full collinearity test. 20. The analysis results reporting is not clear. Author should report the preliminary analysis result (common method bias test, descriptive analysis results, and respondents profile characteristics), measurement model analysis (reliability, convergent validity, discriminant validity), and structural model analysis (path result) 5. Practicality and/or Research implications: Does the paper identify clearly any implications for practice and/or further research? Are these implications consistent with the findings and conclusions of the 21. The structure of the conclusion part should be as follows: (1) Discussion, (2) Theoretical Implications, (3) Practical Implications, (4) Limitations and Future Research Recommendations, and (5) Conclusion. 22. Should have a overall discussion section. 23. For theoretical implication, it is too shallow. This section should discuss the implications of the study's findings and how they contribute to the existing theoretical knowledge. Summarize the key findings and their relevance to the existing theoretical frameworks or models. Analyze how the findings align with or challenge current theoretical perspectives and concepts related to all the key concepts of this study. Discuss any theoretical insights or advancements that the study provides and highlight how the findings contribute to a deeper understanding of the research area. 24. For practical implications, it is not well written. The authors should provide valuable insights based on current practices and policies, supported by evidence from their research. To strengthen the practical implications, it is crucial to reference specific findings, data, or examples that demonstrate the validity and reliability of the recommendations. By incorporating this approach, the authors can offer concrete and actionable suggestions that have a solid grounding in their research findings. 25. A conclusion section with not more than 150 words is required. 26. Proofread the manuscript, Clarity is required, and cite more recent relevant studies. Please also check citation format and referencing style. Reviewer #2: I don’t see it as mandatory because it is already a complete piece of work, but I think that the methodological section could be strengthened if some key aspects related to the internal validity of the experimental designs were described in more detail: (1) Extraneous or confounding variables: It would be helpful to identify which variables could influence the results and to explain clearly how they are controlled (for example, randomization, counterbalancing, standardized instructions, or environmental control). In the last studies, this would be especially important because the designs are becoming more complex. (2) Controls used to address threats to internal validity: such as history, maturation, selection, and experimenter effects. It would be useful to indicate which procedures were used to reduce these threats. ****** -->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: Yes: Cristian O. Beltran-Oicata ******** [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: s://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/figures You may also use PLOS’s free figure tool, NAAS, to help you prepare publication quality figures: s://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.0348289.r001
Revision 1
22 Jan 2026 Author Response Dear Dr. Zhu and the Reviewers, We sincerely thank you and the editorial team for the careful handling of our manuscript and for the time and effort devoted to its evaluation. We are also grateful to the two reviewers for their constructive, detailed, and insightful comments, which have been extremely helpful in improving the quality and clarity of our work. In response to the editor’s guidance and all reviewer comments, we have conducted a thorough and careful revision of the manuscript. Given the scope and depth of the revisions, we have provided a detailed, point-by-point response in the attached file entitled “Response to Reviewers.docx.” In this document, we address each comment individually and clearly indicate where the corresponding changes can be found in the revised manuscript, with specific line numbers referring to the “Revised Manuscript with Track Changes.docx.” Overall, the revision focused on four main aspects. First, we substantially improved the clarity and coherence of the manuscript by reorganizing the logical structure of the theoretical framework, methods, results, discussion, and implications. Second, we strengthened the methodological reporting by providing more explicit descriptions of experimental procedures, internal validity considerations, and ethical approvals. Third, we deepened the theoretical discussion by rearticulating the core theoretical contributions and clarifying how the findings address specific gaps in the existing literature. Finally, we revised the practical implications to ensure that they are clearly grounded in the empirical findings and offer concrete, evidence-based guidance for policy and practice. We hope these revisions have significantly improved the rigor, transparency, and overall contribution of the manuscript. We sincerely appreciate the editor’s and reviewers’ valuable feedback and hope that the revised version now meets the journal’s expectations. We would be grateful for your further consideration of our manuscript. Thank you very much for your consideration. Kind regards, Juan Su Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0348289.r002
26 Feb 2026 Decision Letter - Bifeng Zhu, Editor -->PONE-D-25-40512R1-->-->Rigid versus flexible: The effect of destination revitalization policy on tourists' travel behavioral intention-->-->PLOS One Dear Dr. Su, 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 check the reference and figures. -->-->Please submit your revised manuscript by Apr 12 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, Bifeng Zhu 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 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: All comments have been addressed 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: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ****** -->3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? --> Reviewer #1: Yes 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: Yes 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: Yes 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: I am satisfied with the revised manuscript. All my comments are addressed sufficiently. Thus, I have no further comments. Reviewer #2: Dear author Congratulations on the rigor of your research Please, in terms of style, correct the reference error on line 203 and label the figures as "Author's own work". ****** -->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: Cristian Oswaldo Beltrán-Oicatá ******** [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: s://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/figures You may also use PLOS’s free figure tool, NAAS, to help you prepare publication quality figures: s://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.0348289.r003
Revision 2
13 Apr 2026 Author Response Dear Editor and reviewers , We sincerely thank you and the reviewers for your careful evaluation of our manuscript and for your valuable comments. In this revision, we have carefully addressed all comments raised by the editorial office and the reviewers. Specifically, we have reviewed the reference list to ensure completeness and accuracy, corrected formatting and citation issues, and revised the identified reference error. In addition, we have updated all figure captions to include “Author’s own work,” as suggested. All changes have been incorporated into the revised manuscript. For clarity, the revised content is highlighted in red in the file “Revised Manuscript with Track Changes.docx.” A detailed, point-by-point response to each comment is provided in the attached file “Response to Reviewers.docx.” We greatly appreciate the constructive feedback and the positive evaluation of our work. Thank you again for your time and consideration. Kind regards, Juan Su On behalf of the authors Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Response_to_Reviewers_auresp_2.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0348289.r004
14 Apr 2026 Decision Letter - Bifeng Zhu, Editor Rigid versus flexible: The effect of destination revitalization policy on tourists' travel behavioral intention PONE-D-25-40512R2 Dear Dr. Su, 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, Bifeng Zhu Academic Editor PLOS One Additional Editor Comments (optional): Reviewers' comments: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0348289.r005
Formally Accepted
Acceptance Letter - Bifeng Zhu, Editor PONE-D-25-40512R2 PLOS One Dear Dr. Su, 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. Bifeng Zhu Academic Editor PLOS One https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0348289.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 .