https://orcid.org/0009-0002-8287-4096
Peer Review History
| Original SubmissionNovember 23, 2024 |
|---|
|
-->PONE-D-24-48467-->-->Positive Childhood Experiences and Subjective Well-being Among Chinese University Students: The Mediating Role of Resilience-->-->PLOS ONE Dear Dr. Yin, 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. The revised version should address all comments. This is a major revision with no guarantee of the paper's acceptance.-->--> Please submit your revised manuscript by Feb 03 2025 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file. Please include the following items when submitting your revised 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, Petri Böckerman 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 2. In the ethics statement in the Methods, you have specified that verbal consent was obtained. Please provide additional details regarding how this consent was documented and witnessed, and state whether this was approved by the IRB 3. Please remove all personal information, ensure that the data shared are in accordance with participant consent, and re-upload a fully anonymized data set. Note: spreadsheet columns with personal information must be removed and not hidden as all hidden columns will appear in the published file. Additional guidance on preparing raw data for publication can be found in our Data Policy (https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-human-research-participant-data-and-other-sensitive-data) and in the following article: http://www.bmj.com/content/340/bmj.c181.long. Additional Editor Comments : The revised version should address all comments. This is a major revision with no guarantee of the paper's acceptance. [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: Partly Reviewer #2: Partly ********** -->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: 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: This study addresses a highly relevant topic, as the well-being of college students is a matter of increasing concern. By exploring the role of Positive Childhood Experiences (PCEs) in relation to subjective well-being (SWB), with psychological resilience as a mediator, the authors aim to shed light on important mechanisms underlying mental health in this population. Here below, I have provided a series of suggestions that I hope will be useful in further improving the clarity, structure, and interpretative depth of the manuscript. --Introduction-- The introduction provides a solid overview of the study's background and highlights the relevance of Positive Childhood Experiences (PCEs) and their connection to subjective well-being (SWB). The authors emphasize this issue particularly in the context of China. While this is certainly relevant, it would be helpful to highlight that the well-being of university students is a worldwide concern, as evidenced by global trends in mental health challenges within this population. Including references to studies or data that reflect these international patterns could strengthen the rationale for exploring the constructs and relationships examined in this study. This would position the research within a broader, global context and further emphasize the importance of addressing these issues. Additionally, I suggest improving the clarity and logical flow of the introduction by separating the theoretical background from the study’s hypotheses and objectives. A clearer structure could involve presenting the background on each key construct considered in the study—such as PCEs, psychological resilience, and SWB—in distinct paragraphs, followed by a dedicated paragraph titled The Present Study, where the authors explicitly outline the study’s objectives, hypotheses, and the mediation model describing the relationships among the variables. This approach would help streamline the flow of ideas, and better guide the reader from the theoretical background to the specific aims of the research. While the introduction effectively explains the concept of PCEs and their general role in well-being, it would also be helpful to clarify why these experiences are particularly relevant to the college student population. For instance, elaborating on how PCEs may buffer common stressors faced by students—such as academic pressure, life transitions, or new social environments—would further strengthen the rationale for focusing on this specific group. --Methods-- In the Methods section, I recommend reporting the internal consistency (e.g., Cronbach’s α) for the Positive Childhood Experiences Scale, as has been done for the other instruments. This would ensure consistency in the presentation of the psychometric properties across all measures used. --Analysis and Results-- The title of the section 'Mediation Analysis of Psychological Resilience' could be misleading, as it seems to suggest that the analysis focuses on resilience as the outcome variable. In reality, the mediation analysis aims to examine subjective well-being as the dependent variable, with resilience acting as the mediator. I suggest simplifying the title to 'Mediation Analysis' to avoid potential confusion and more accurately reflect the focus of the model. The paragraph describing the mediation analysis would benefit from restructuring to improve clarity and flow, as some parts are repetitive and create confusion. For example, the coefficient 3.15 is mentioned multiple times, but it is unclear whether it represents the total effect from a regression without the mediator or a separate analysis. Specifically, in the first mention, 'positive childhood experiences significantly predicted subjective well-being (β = 3.15, p < 0.001)', and later, 'The total effect of positive childhood experiences on subjective well-being was 3.15 (95% CI [2.78, 3.52])'. If this value represents the total effect, it should be stated clearly once and avoided elsewhere to reduce redundancy. Similarly, the direct effect of 1.60 is repeated: 'When psychological resilience was included as a mediator, the direct effect of positive childhood experiences on subjective well-being remained significant (β = 1.60, p < 0.001)' and again as 'while the direct effect was 1.60 (95% CI [1.25, 1.94])'. This duplication does not add new information and could be streamlined to improve readability. In addition, Table 2 could be presented more clearly. If the regressions reported correspond to intermediate steps in the mediation analysis, this connection needs to be explicitly explained in the text. Presenting the results in a more structured order—starting with the total effect, then the relationship between the independent variable and the mediator, and finally the direct and indirect effects—would help clarify the flow of the analysis. I also recommend consolidating the mediation results into a single, well-organized table to eliminate redundancy and provide a clear overview of the key findings, making the results easier to follow and interpret. Alternatively, if the authors prefer to present the results across two tables, it would be important to clearly specify which variables are predictors and which are outcomes. Taking inspiration from the output format of the PROCESS macro could provide a straightforward and widely recognized template for presenting mediation analyses. Finally, the sentence 'These analysis suggest that psychological resilience partially mediates the relationship between positive childhood experiences and subjective well-being...', which serves as a conclusion to the mediation analysis, should be moved to the end of the section. Placing it after presenting the total, direct, and indirect effects would provide a more logical and coherent closing to the paragraph. --Discussion-- The discussion appropriately addresses the study’s hypotheses (H1–H4) and interprets the results within an appropriate theoretical context. The authors effectively connect their findings to developmental and positive psychology frameworks, referencing existing literature to support their claims. However, I suggest further expanding the interpretation of the results beyond the current descriptions. While the mediating role of resilience (H4) is well-explained, the discussion should explore in greater depth how these findings apply to the college student population, particularly in relation to the challenges and stressors unique to this group, such as academic pressures, transitional life stages, and social stressors. This focus would better contextualize the relevance of the results and strengthen their practical significance. Additionally, while the implications for educational interventions are mentioned, I recommend expanding this section to include more concrete and actionable suggestions. For example, the authors could discuss targeted interventions or programs designed to enhance resilience and subjective well-being in college students, such as resilience-building workshops or mental health support systems. Including such examples would make the practical contributions of the findings more tangible and impactful. Lastly, while the key hypotheses are discussed individually, it might be helpful to include a brief summary that ties together the findings for H1–H4, reinforcing how they collectively contribute to the study’s broader objectives. --Limitations-- I recommend expanding the limitations section to address the influence of individual differences and demographic characteristics on the study’s findings. The sample has been considered as a whole, but factors such as age and gender could potentially moderate the relationships between Positive Childhood Experiences, psychological resilience, and subjective well-being. For instance, younger and older students might report different levels of subjective well-being and resilience due to varying life challenges and coping mechanisms. Additionally, since the sample has a predominance of female participants, it would be important to acknowledge that gender differences may influence these relationships, as suggested in previous literature. Explicitly recognizing these sources of variability would provide a more nuanced interpretation of the study's findings and their generalizability. Reviewer #2: This study explores the link between positive childhood experiences and subjective well-being in Chinese college students, finding that psychological resilience played a partially mediating role. Nevertheless, there are some areas for improvement that could strengthen the study’s quality and clarity: Comment 1: - In order to be able to achieve the scholarly level of a published manuscript in PLOS ONE, the framework and logic of the manuscript should be improved. Comment 2: - Updating and expanding the literature references to include more studies would situate the study Comment 3: -To enhance readability and accessibility, a few adjustments to presentation and structure could also be considered. Comment 4: -To enhance readability and accessibility, a few adjustments to presentation and structure could also be considered. Comment 5: - Formatting and details of manuscripts need to be more standardized. Comment 6: - Line 38 The manuscript lacks a clear theory to support the relationship between the research variables. Comment 7: - Line 38 and line 49, the manuscript contains a large number of statements that are not supported by references. Comment 8: - The logic of the research hypothesis is presented in a way that is difficult to understand. Comment 9: - Line 102-140, in terms of the overall structure of the manuscript, this paragraph doesn't quite fit. Comment 10: - Line 102-140, in terms of the overall structure of the manuscript, this paragraph is unnecessary. Comment 11: - Line 114, I am of the opinion that an ethical statement about the research would be inappropriate. Comment 12: - The materials and methods section, academic level and rigour of writing needs to be strengthened. Comment 13: - Line 188, this sentence is incomprehensible. Comment 14: - In the full text, I didn't find Table 3. Comment 15: - The Results section is too simple and needs to be made more precise in how it's presented. Comment 16: - The logic of the discussion section is unclear, and I think the introduction and discussion are two different sections. Comment 17: - Line 286, I am concerned that the assumptions and data analysis of the current study do not support this conclusion. Comment 18: - Line 298, I don't think the conclusions of the current study can be described as ' influence'. Comment 19: - Line 357, I think it's unappropriate for the current study to draw this conclusion. ********** -->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.] While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step. |
| Revision 1 |
|
-->PONE-D-24-48467R1-->-->Positive Childhood Experiences and Subjective Well-being Among Chinese University Students: The Mediating Role of Resilience-->-->PLOS ONE Dear Dr. Yin, 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. ==============================-->-->In view of the reviewers' comments, a major revision is warranted. Please address especially reviewer 2's perspective that while the study is of value, there are necessary improvements needed regarding writing style and content presentation. -->-->============================== Please submit your revised manuscript by Sep 07 2025 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file. Please include the following items when submitting your revised 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, Ching Sin Siau Academic Editor PLOS ONE Journal Requirements: 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. 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 would like to thank the authors for the effort made in revising the manuscript and for the comprehensive responses to my comments. The revised version shows a clear improvement in structure, clarity, and overall quality. My suggestions have been addressed and implemented. However, after a detailed review of the revised manuscript, I believe a few minor revisions are still needed to further enhance the scientific rigor and readability of the work. Please find my points below: -Supporting Reference for Buffering Effect of PCEs In the Introduction, the statement that “PCEs may act as a buffer against these stressors by enhancing emotional regulation, problem-solving skills, and resilience” is important, but it currently lacks an appropriate reference. Please add a supporting citation or clarify the source for this assertion. -Figure 1 Caption: Model Terminology The caption currently reads “Hypothetical Model of Positive Childhood Experiences.” Given that the figure depicts the tested mediation model (corresponding to PROCESS Model 4), I suggest revising the caption to “Tested Model of Positive Childhood Experiences” or “Mediation Model of Positive Childhood Experiences” to more accurately reflect its role in the study. -Redundancy in Reporting Path Coefficients The results section presents the same path coefficients both in the text and in Table 2, sometimes with very similar wording. To avoid redundancy, I recommend reporting the numerical results in Table 2 only, while briefly describing their interpretation in the main text. -Organization and Redundancy in Results Sections (Sections 3.3 and 3.4) The coefficients and results for the mediation analysis are repeated multiple times across Section 3.3, Section 3.4, and the figure caption. The title “Visualization of the Mediation Model” (Section 3.4) is also potentially misleading, as this section essentially repeats the results already presented. I suggest integrating all numerical results and interpretations into a single section (e.g., Section 3.3 “Mediation Analysis”), with the figure used for visualization only. The main text can refer to the figure as needed, but without repeating the statistical values. These are minor issues and do not detract from the overall quality of the revision, which has addressed all the major concerns raised in the previous review. Once these points are addressed, I believe the manuscript will be suitable for publication. Thank you again for your thorough work and responsiveness. Best regards Reviewer #2: The subject matter of the manuscript's research is valuable, but the manuscript's research is very weak, and the author's writing and presentation of the manuscript needs to be optimized, especially in terms of the logic and rigor of the research writing and ideas, which undermines the quality of the manuscript as a whole. The language of the manuscript also needs to be optimized to fit the standards of English writing. Most importantly, I think the authors may not have fully understood the reviewers' comments during the first revision. Comment 1: - The title of the article is “Chinese University Students”, and the source of the subjects in the manuscript is four universities in Yunnan Province, I found no evidence that the sample source was representative of the Chinese University. Comment 2: - Line 36, The citation and presentation of references in this way is rare and difficult to read, and is used in the manuscript for references to empirical studies. Moreover, comparing collectivist cultures and individualist cultures, does natural contact refer to a culture, and what is the relationship between natural contact and the former two? Comment 3: - Developmental Psychology Theory and Positive Psychology Theory are two very important theories, and I am curious as to how these two theories actually support the point of view of the article; Line 51 is also a very important theoretical support, but there is no literature to support it. In addition, I think there are other theories that can be referred to, such as developmental psychopathology theory (Cicchetti & Toth, 2005; Toth & Cicchetti, 2013). I think that the support of theories to the research point of view needs to be completed and systematic arguments, not a one-sentence generalization. References Cicchetti, D., & Toth, S.L., 2005. Child maltreatment. Annual Review of Clinical Psychology, 1, 409–438. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.clinpsy.1.102803.144029 Toth, S. L., & Cicchetti, D. (2013). A developmental psychopathology perspective on child maltreatment. Child Maltreatment, 18(3), 135-139. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077559513500380 Comment 4: - Line 62 This is an analysis of why buffering stress is important for PCEs, but I have not found any psychological theory or literature to support it. Comment 5: - Line 67 As with the previous comment, I have not found any literature in support of this argument. Comment 6: - Line 69 This sentence contains a grammatical error. Comment 7: - Still with the suggestion of theoretical support, I think it is not rigorous to support a research idea with just one sentence related to psychological theory. Comment 8: - Line 86 It's incomprehensible that this sentence should appear here. Comment 9: - Line 88, this sentence seems redundant. Comment 10: - Line 96 recommends that manuscripts be carefully scrutinized for punctuation to meet publication requirements. Is self-efficacy and emotional regulation the same concept as psychological resilience? I suspect that the cited literature does not support the research point of view. Comment 11: - Line 100 3 references to experimental studies, I only found the Turkish culture, the other one was not stated, so how did Line 100's concluding comments come about? As well I would like to know what is the significance of your repeated references to cross-cultural differences or stability to the ideas in your manuscript? Your study was conducted among Chinese subjects, how did cross-culturalization affect the Chinese subjects? Can the empirical studies cited here prove to be equally applicable in Chinese subjects? Comment 12: - Line 102 I don't understand the point this paragraph is trying to make, why continue to make assumptions in a manuscript that have already been proven when it has already been written in the previous paragraph that the relationship between PCEs, psychological resilience, and SWB has already been proven? Comment 13: - H1-H4 Please formulate your research hypothesis in more concise and scholarly language. Comment 14: - Line 124 Can't “obvious patterns (e.g., all the same answers)” in the manuscript represent an invalid questionnaire, and do all the same answers mean that the same options were chosen for all questions on the scale? Or are there consecutive questions in which consecutive questions are selected? And what are invalid questionnaires? Comment 15: - Line 126 I'm curious if you measured any other demographic variables, if there were differences or correlations in the other demographic variables, and what to do with them when analyzing the data. Comment 16: - Methods: I think you could have provided more details on how the subjects agreed to participate in the study, "Verbal informed consent was obtained in the presence of class counselors who served as impartial witnesses." the subjects were all adult college students, so why didn't they sign an informed consent form? Comment 17: - Line 143 I am not aware of any previous study in which the scale was validated. Comment 18: - 2.2.2 Whether the Psychological Resilience Scale is scored as a total or mean score? Comment 19: - Line 157 Where does this conclusion come from? Comment 20: - Line 190 I think it is highly inappropriate to present this conclusion in descriptive statistics. Comment 21: - Line 215 I think the presentation here is inappropriate, you can express your findings in a paragraph, table, or mediator modeling diagram, and the coefficients for each pathway have been clearly presented in the table and mediator modeling diagram below. This part of the manuscript is too complicated and unclear, and I recommend reading the scientific presentation in the literature to meet PLOS ONE's publication standards. Comment 22: - Lines 247-249 The manuscript contains similar repetitive and insufficiently refined writing expressions, and it is recommended that the language be refined. Comment 23: - The discussion section is very confusing, for example, the discussion of the findings is mixed with the value of the study, which seems unclear. The reasons that influenced the findings of the manuscript were also unclear, and I think there is a strong need to revisit the findings. Comment 24: - In addition to the above COMMENTS, I think there are some important comments: 1) The ideas expressed in the manuscript are very weak, and it is suggested to increase the understanding of the research topic and the analysis of the research data to enrich the depth of the study. 2) The introduction part of the manuscript mentions collectivism and individualism, as well as stability in cross-cultural research, but it does not appear in the conclusions of the study and the discussion part of the study in the context of different cultures. At the same time, I think it is very worthwhile to discuss in depth this mediation model proposed in the context of Chinese culture, and whether the mediation model is similar or different from individualism in the context of collectivism. In addition, as well as to my knowledge, Southwest China is a multi-ethnic region, does the multi-ethnic culture affect their understanding of PCEs, psychological resilience, and SWB. 3) I would like to know how you carried out the measurement of the subjects' positive childhood experiences, and whether you divided their positive childhood experiences over time, e.g., the questions on the scale represent their last three years, 6-12 years old, or their entire adolescence, and I think that there may be differences in the impact on well-being of positive childhood experiences at different time stages, and of different durations. 4) Seeing only two demographic variables in the manuscript, gender and age, I'm curious if other demographic variables were collected in your study, how other variables were handled in the data analysis, and whether the mediation model differed between genders is also worth exploring. ********** -->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: 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.] While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step. |
| Revision 2 |
|
-->PONE-D-24-48467R2-->-->Positive Childhood Experiences and Subjective Well-Being Among University Students in Yunnan Province, China: The Mediating Role of Psychological Resilience-->-->PLOS ONE Dear Dr. Yin, 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 Dec 07 2025 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file. Please include the following items when submitting your revised 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, Shun Wang Academic Editor PLOS ONE Journal Requirements: 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. Additional Editor Comments: While you have addressed many of the reviewers' comments, three critical issues remain in the revised draft: 1) Contribution Clarity: The manuscript repeatedly states that your findings are consistent with existing literature. Please clarify the novel theoretical or empirical contribution of your work. 2) SWB Measurement Justification: The decision to combine life satisfaction and affect into a single SWB measure requires strong theoretical or empirical support from the literature. If such support is lacking, we recommend treating them as two separate outcome variables in your analysis. 3) Variable Measurement Details: There is insufficient information on the measures for your key variables (Positive Childhood Experiences, Psychological Resilience, and SWB). Please list all survey questions for each measure, either in the main text or an appendix, to ensure clarity for a broad audience. Please also address the minor issues listed in the separate section below. 1) Summary Statistics: Add a table (e.g., Table 1) presenting summary statistics (observations, mean, standard deviation, min, max) for all variables. 2) Clarify "invalid questionnaires": In line 139, explain what constitutes "other invalid questionnaires" in a footnote. 3) Formatting Consistency: Check and correct inconsistent font sizes (e.g., lines 105-106, 233-236) in the entire document. 4) Spacing Errors: Proofread the entire document to add missing spaces between words (e.g., line 78 before "Several factors"). [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: (No Response) Reviewer #2: (No Response) ********** -->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: Partly ********** -->3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? --> Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: N/A ********** -->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: 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: Comment 1 I appreciate that the authors have expanded the theoretical background and added several references clarifying the general associations between Positive Childhood Experiences (PCEs), resilience, and subjective well-being (SWB). However, the sentence “By enhancing emotional regulation, problem-solving skills, and resilience, PCEs can act as a buffer against these stressors, ultimately promoting better mental health and well-being [18,19]” remains particularly important, as it appears to summarize the key theoretical assumption underlying the mediation model. As I understand it, this statement suggests that PCEs foster resilience, which in turn acts as a buffer against stressors and promotes better mental health and well-being — in other words, resilience is presented as the psychological mechanism through which PCEs exert their beneficial effects on well-being. Given the centrality of this claim for the logic of the model, the supporting references should clearly substantiate it. Reference [19], which is a review, offers a useful overview of associations between PCEs, resilience, and well-being, but it does not explicitly explain how resilience functions as the buffering mechanism. Concerning reference [18], I admit that I was not able to retrieve it, but based on the title it does not seem directly relevant to this conceptual link. If this reference is indeed pertinent, I would kindly ask the authors to specify how it supports the proposed pathway. I would therefore encourage the authors to verify the accuracy and relevance of reference [18], and to make explicit how the literature, particularly reference [19], supports this conceptual pathway. Specifically, the introduction should articulate more clearly how resilience operates as the mediating process through which PCEs exert their buffering effect on well-being. Moreover, since the mediation effect of resilience was found to be statistically significant, it would be particularly important to strengthen the theoretical rationale underlying this pathway and to ensure that it is coherently reflected in the Discussion. In its current form, the Discussion states that PCEs may have boosted resilience via self-esteem and confidence; however, these constructs were not explicitly introduced a priori nor measured in the study. I would invite caution in introducing unmeasured constructs as explanatory mechanisms, unless they are clearly grounded in prior literature and framed as hypotheses for future research. Clarifying the theoretical sequence (how PCEs enhance resilience and how resilience, in turn, contributes to subjective well-being) would provide a more coherent interpretation of the findings and strengthen the overall conceptual contribution of the study. Comment 2 I apologize for raising this point only at this stage, as it escaped my attention in the previous review round. Upon re-reading the manuscript, I realized that the operationalization of Subjective Well-Being (SWB) deserves further clarification. The current approach, in which SWB is computed as the sum of SWLS and PANAS total scores (with reverse-coded affect scores), may conflate conceptually distinct dimensions — cognitive (life satisfaction) and affective (positive and negative affect) components. Moreover, the two measures differ in item number, scale range, and variance, which can distort their relative contribution to the composite score. The moderate correlations typically observed between SWLS and PANAS further suggest that, although related, these constructs are not interchangeable; thus, a simple additive combination may alter the structure of the dependent variable and, in turn, influence the mediation results. Additionally, it is not entirely clear what was included in the composite measure of SWB. The manuscript mentions “reverse-coded affect scores”, but does not specify whether both Positive and Negative Affect were used (with the latter reversed), or whether only reversed Negative Affect was combined with SWLS. These two approaches are conceptually different: excluding Positive Affect would not align with the standard tripartite model of SWB (Diener, 1984; Watson et al., 1988). I would therefore recommend that the authors clarify exactly which PANAS components were included and on what theoretical grounds. I encourage the authors to provide a clear theoretical and empirical justification for this operationalization. In the absence of strong theoretical grounds, it might be advisable to (a) standardize the component scores before combining them, or (b) empirically test whether a single latent SWB factor can be supported, for instance through a confirmatory factor analysis verifying that SWLS, PA, and reversed NA load on a common factor with acceptable fit. If this factor structure is not supported, the manuscript should acknowledge that the SWB components are distinct yet complementary, clarifying that the composite index reflects an overall summary of subjective well-being rather than a unidimensional latent construct. This clarification would strengthen the transparency and construct validity of the analyses without requiring major changes to the study design. ********** -->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: 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. |
| Revision 3 |
|
-->PONE-D-24-48467R3-->-->Positive Childhood Experiences and Subjective Well-Being Among University Students in Yunnan Province, China: The Mediating Role of Psychological Resilience-->-->PLOS One Dear Dr. Yin, 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 25 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:-->
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, Denise Evans, PhD Academic Editor PLOS One Journal Requirements: 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. 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 #3: (No Response) ********** -->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 #3: Yes ********** -->3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? --> Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #3: 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 #3: 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 #3: 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 authors have addessed all the comments and issues I've raised. I think that the paper is now suitable for publication Reviewer #3: Discussion section refers to other studies but in some cases, these other studies are not explained in relation to this study findings. There are still grammatical errors and spacing issues within the document. The lack of ethics clearance is a concern as there are some items in the questionnaires that are invasive. ********** -->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 #3: 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. |
| Revision 4 |
|
-->PONE-D-24-48467R4-->-->Positive Childhood Experiences and Subjective Well-Being Among University Students in Yunnan Province, China: The Mediating Role of Psychological Resilience-->-->PLOS One Dear Dr. Yin, 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 May 30 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:-->
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. As the corresponding author, your ORCID iD is verified in the submission system and will appear in the published article. PLOS supports the use of ORCID, and we encourage all coauthors to register for an ORCID iD and use it as well. Please encourage your coauthors to verify their ORCID iD within the submission system before final acceptance, as unverified ORCID iDs will not appear in the published article. Only the individual author can complete the verification step; PLOS staff cannot verify ORCID iDs on behalf of authors. We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript. Kind regards, Denise Evans, PhD Academic Editor PLOS One Journal Requirements: 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. Additional Editor Comments: Please confirm whether the study has received ethics clearance. On page 7 of the manuscript, it states that ‘The study protocol was reviewed by the ethics committee of Yunnan Normal University.’ However, it remains unclear why the study qualified for exemption, given that it involved direct interaction with participants and the collection of informed consent, even with the use of anonymous questionnaires. Kindly upload the official communication from the ethics committee indicating that the protocol was reviewed and exempted and the reasons for exemption. [Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.] [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. |
| Revision 5 |
|
Positive Childhood Experiences and Subjective Well-Being Among University Students in Yunnan Province, China: The Mediating Role of Psychological Resilience PONE-D-24-48467R5 Dear Dr. Yin, 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, Denise Evans, PhD 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 #3: 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 #3: Yes ********** -->3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? --> Reviewer #3: 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 #3: 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 #3: 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 #3: This article has been been peer reviewed by me before and this was the last issue to be addressed. The ethics issues have since been addressed. ********** -->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 #3: No ********** |
| Formally Accepted |
|
PONE-D-24-48467R5 PLOS One Dear Dr. Yin, 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. Denise Evans Academic Editor PLOS One |
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 .