Peer Review History
Original SubmissionSeptember 2, 2019 |
---|
PONE-D-19-24506 When good for business is not good enough: Effects of pro-diversity beliefs and instrumentality of diversity on intergroup attitudes PLOS ONE Dear Dr. Kauff, Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. I have now received two reviews of your manuscript and also read it myself. Although the reviewers and I believe that you are addressing an interesting topic, we have several concerns that prevent us from recommending this paper for publication. As you acknowledge in the general discussion, the crucial effects were quite weak. For me, this problem is aggravated by a number of issues. First, only Experiment 3 was preregistered. Because there is a lot of data trimming in all of the experiments, questions can be raised about researcher degrees of freedom. I appreciate that you report the outcome of analyses with different subsets of participants, but sometimes these analyses also reveal different results, which raises doubts about the robustness of the effects. Second, in Experiments 1 and 2, you test single effects and draw conclusions on the basis of the fact that one effect is significant whereas another is not. In my opinion, it is more appropriate to compare effects directly. For instance, in Experiment 1, rather than emphasizing that “detrimental diversity (compared to instrumental diversity) had a mitigating effect on the positive relation between pro-diversity beliefs and general outgroup attitudes” whereas “neither non-instrumentality in diverse (neutral diverse vs. instrumental diverse condition; b = -0.610, SE = 0.487, p = .213, CI95% = -1.576, .355) nor negative instrumentality in non-diverse groups (detrimental non-diverse vs. instrumental diverse condition; b = -0.800, SE = 0.607, p = .191, CI95% = -2.005, 0.405) interacted with pro-diversity beliefs” it would be better to test whether the effect for detrimental diversity was significantly different than that of non-instrumentality in diverse or negative instrumentality in non-diverse groups. Also, to control for effects of negativity, a direct comparison of detrimental diversity and detrimental non-diverse conditions is needed. This concern relates to Comment 8 of Reviewer 1, who notes that in Experiment 3, the comparison with detrimental consequences under justice-based pro-diversity beliefs is crucial but not reported. A quick inspection of the data suggests that these crucial comparisons will generate effects that are even weaker than the effects that you report now. For these and other reasons, I doubt whether the conclusions that you draw, are actually warranted by your data. Although PLoS ONE is not concerned primarily with the level of contribution, we do want to make sure that the papers we publish report data that are likely to be replicable and conclusions that do not go beyond the data. I’m afraid that your paper currently does not meet these criteria. In order to reach the criteria, not only additional analyses are needed but also new data from a new preregistered study. Although I cannot accept the current version of your paper for publication, I would be willing to consider a new paper that reports a new study as well as a more appropriate analyses of all data (old studies and new study), and that reports conclusions that are warranted by the data, even if the conclusion is that there is no support for your hypotheses. The question you address is an interesting one that has implications for the real world, so it is important that we get this right. Here are a number of other thoughts that I had while reading your paper:
If you decide to resubmit a revised version of your paper, please also take into account all the comments of the reviewers. We would appreciate receiving your revised manuscript by Dec 15 2019 11:59PM. When you are 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. If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. To enhance the reproducibility of your results, we recommend that if applicable you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io, where a protocol can be assigned its own identifier (DOI) such that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:
Please note while forming your response, if your article is accepted, you may have the opportunity to make the peer review history publicly available. The record will include editor decision letters (with reviews) and your responses to reviewer comments. If eligible, we will contact you to opt in or out. We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript. Kind regards, Jan De Houwer Academic Editor PLOS ONE Journal Requirements: 1. When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements. 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 http://www.journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and http://www.journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf 2. Please include captions for your Supporting Information files at the end of your manuscript, and update any in-text citations to match accordingly. Please see our Supporting Information guidelines for more information: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/supporting-information. [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: 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: 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: The paper challenges conventional wisdom in the area of diversity research by suggesting that instrumentality-based pro-diversity beliefs can backfire when diversity turns out to be detrimental. Three studies provide some evidence that when diversity yields detrimental consequences, instrumentality-based pro-diversity beliefs can weaken positive attitudes towards ethnic outgroups, or even create more negative attitudes compared to situations in which there are morality-based pro-diversity beliefs. The paper is well written, the studies are well conducted, and the findings are thought provoking. In the following I offer a number of suggestions to further improve the paper in chronological order, but comments 6 and 8 (and potentially 9) probably demand most attention. 1. Overall framing: I think your point would be even clearer when you refer to it as a backlash effect from instrumentality-based pro-diversity beliefs, and would also explicitly call it like that in the title. That way your main point is clearer. 2. I like and understand the positioning of the paper in the diversity beliefs literature, but one of the main questions I have is whether your findings are really due to experiences with diversity, or due to experiences with ethnic outgroup members. This is difficult/impossible to disentangle in your studies, but it does require discussing the literature on the contact hypothesis (e.g., Allport, 1954; Tropp & Pettigrew, 2005) and either providing an integrated perspective and argument, or discussing it as an alternative explanation for your findings. I guess the latter option would be easier, but the first could be more exciting and may actually not be too difficult given that the general idea of such an integration would be that positive [negative] experiences with a group of diverse members would positively [negatively] shape attitudes towards those members. 3. Your intro and theory sections are well-written, but the comparison with pro-morality beliefs came too late for me. In the organizational literature, instrumentality-based pro-diversity beliefs are usually contrasted with instrumentality-based pro-similarity beliefs, so I was also surprised that you used a different comparison category. So it would be helpful if you introduce and explain morality-based pro-diversity beliefs earlier on as the comparison category. 4. On p. 13, you discuss your operationalization of pro-diversity beliefs (IV) and of attitudes towards immigrants (DV ) in one paragraph. Please put them in different paragraphs to make it easier for the reader to understand. 5. In study 2, you excluded participants when they spent less than 10 seconds on both pages explaining the context, but the average time spent on those pages was much higher. So isn't 10 seconds still way too short and shouldn't the inclusion criteria be stricter (e.g., spending at least 25 seconds in order to have read it properly)? 6. To me, the design of study 2 came across as very obvious given that you measured participants' prejudice directly after the manipulation. It is also weird that the distractor items only came after measuring the DV, which means that there was little use of the distractor items for the study. So did you correctly write down the order of the study here, and if so, can you explain why you did it in this order and how you can be sure that participants were not aware of what your aims were in this study? And if it was too obvious, perhaps that also explains why you didn't find an interaction effect, given that the link between the manipulation and the DV was too strong? Either way, I think it would be good to critically consider whether the second study is of sufficient quality. 7. In study 3, the reliability of your prejudice measure is below the standard threshold of a = .70. That does not necessarily constitute a problem, but at the very least you should point it out. Does the removal of an item yield a better score? 8. In terms of interpretation, on p. 28 at the bottom you suggest that "presenting participants with instrumentality-based pro-diversity views surrounding exchange students increases negative attitudes towards this group when the presence of exchange students at universities was portrayed as having detrimental consequences". I understand that interpretation based on the comparison with the situation when the consequences were instrumental, but I wonder if that's the correct comparison. Shouldn't the comparison be with detrimental consequences under justice-based pro-diversity beliefs? In case instrumental pro-diversity beliefs even under detrimental consequences of diversity do not yield more negative attitudes towards outgroup members, then overall there is no problem with instrumental pro-diversity beliefs. However, in case instrumental pro-diversity beliefs do yield more negative attitudes under detrimental consequences compared to morality- or justice-based pro-diversity beliefs, then it really becomes questionable if instrumental pro-diversity beliefs are desirable. In other places (e.g., p. 30, the paragraph starting with "summarizing") your interpretations of your findings go into a similar direction, where I thus wonder if they shouldn't focus more on whether or not instrumentality-based pro-diversity beliefs yield more negative attitudes compared to morality-based pro-diversity beliefs. 9. On a related point, you already mention in study 2 that you were somewhat surprised by the overall negative attitudes of those in a morality-based pro-diversity beliefs condition, and in general your findings do seem to indicate that when diversity is instrumental, instrumentality-based pro-diversity beliefs yield much more positive attitudes compared to morality-based pro-diversity beliefs. So you could also consider whether the actual story of the paper isn't that instrumental pro-diversity beliefs yield more positive/less negative attitudes when diversity also turns out to be instrumental - especially if it doesn't matter much whether people hold instrumentality- or morality-based pro-diversity beliefs when diversity is detrimental. Interestingly, such a conclusion would yield radically different implications. So I am looking forward to your reply. Again, I really like the overall aim of the paper and hope these comments help to further bolster it's main message - whatever that in the end may be. References Allport, G. W. (1954). The nature of prejudice. New York: Addison-Wesley. Tropp, L. R., & Pettigrew, T. F. (2005). Relationships between intergroup contact and prejudice among minority and majority status groups. Psychological Science, 16(12), 951-957. Reviewer #2: The manuscript ‘When good for business is not good enough: Effects of pro-diversity beliefs and instrumentality of diversity on intergroup attitudes’ explores whether the positive effect of pro-diversity beliefs on general attitudes (as well as ratings of warmth and competence) of ethnic outgroups is moderated by the actual instrumentality of diversity. Specifically, the authors postulate that non-instrumental diversity weakens or even reverses the otherwise positive effect of pro-diversity believes on attitudes towards ethnic outgroups. A question relevant to research and practitioners alike. I believe that the manuscript is a timely contribution addressing an issue of high practical relevance. I particularly appreciate that the authors pre-registered Study 3, that they report deviations from the pre-registration, and that they acknowledge some of the degrees of freedom typically faced by researchers. E.g., they report that the results are comparable including or excluding political orientation as covariate (S1, S3) and they clearly state differences in results emerging by in- or excluding the covariate (in S2). While I have not recalculated the power analysis, I am little bit surprised that a sample of 100 participants (approx. 25 per cell) in Study 1 is sufficient for a moderation analysis. In light of the rather small sample, the authors might emphasize the marginal significant interactions too much (S1 warmth and competence), which are discussed as theoretical informative not only in Study 1 but also in Study 3 (even though I appreciated that the authors discuss this in the limitation section). I further wonder why the authors choose instrumental-diverse and not the neutral condition as baseline. Additional concerns - Study 1: The authors state that the items were assessed on a 5-point-Likert scale, yet the mean for general attitudes is reported as 6.31 (Table 2). Please correct this inconsistency. Please further discuss the overall very positive attitudes toward immigrants - Study 2: Please report the time frame of data collection - Please discuss the unexpected finding that morality-based diversity beliefs lead to detrimental effects in greater details. - Please report by how much the two deleted items (S1 and S3) affected the reliability of the scale ********** 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: Yes: Hans van Dijk 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 be viewed.] 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 us at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step. |
Revision 1 |
PONE-D-19-24506R1 When good for business is not good enough: Effects of pro-diversity beliefs and instrumentality of diversity on intergroup attitudes PLOS ONE Dear Dr. Kauff, Thank you for sending us the revised version of your paper. The reviewers and I are grateful for the many changes that you made, especially the inclusion of the new pre-registered study. As a result, the paper has improved considerably. The reviewers still have some relatively minor comments that they would like you to address in a second revision of the paper. Hence, I invite you to revise the paper once more. We would appreciate receiving your revised manuscript by Jun 15 2020 11:59PM. When you are 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. If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. To enhance the reproducibility of your results, we recommend that if applicable you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io, where a protocol can be assigned its own identifier (DOI) such that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:
Please note while forming your response, if your article is accepted, you may have the opportunity to make the peer review history publicly available. The record will include editor decision letters (with reviews) and your responses to reviewer comments. If eligible, we will contact you to opt in or out. We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript. Kind regards, Jan De Houwer Academic Editor PLOS ONE [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: 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: Partly ********** 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: Thank you very much for addressing the comments and suggestions in a diligent way. I really like your new, third study, appreciate the nuances in the design and that it was preregistered, and overall think that your paper provides an interesting contribution to the literature. I do have a number of suggestions to further bolster the message of your paper. 1. I still think that your findings do not only speak about the potential danger of instrumentality-based pro-diversity beliefs, but also provide some insights into how people look at what you call morality-based pro-diversity beliefs (but see next comment). Studies 1 and 2 indicate that there is a main effect of type of pro-diversity beliefs on prejudice, such that instrumentality-based pro-diversity beliefs are associated with more positive/less negative attitudes. Whereas I think that your concerns about instrumentality-based pro-diversity beliefs are valid, I think your paper also raises questions about the value of morality-based pro-diversity beliefs. In general, I wonder if people aren't wary of moralism - being told what they should or shouldn't do or endorse. In particular in study 2 that may be true. In your discussion you also raise the question if alternative rationales for pro-diversity beliefs wouldn't be better, and by being more explicit about the potential negative effects of morality-based pro-diversity beliefs, you would bolster the need for an alternative pro-diversity rationale. You now only very briefly raise the functionality of morality-based pro-diversity beliefs on p. 53, but think it would be much better if you dedicate more attention to it. 2. Consistency in terminology is very important, especially when some terms are similar. You now sometimes use morality-based and justice-based pro-diversity beliefs exchangably. My suggestion is to label those justice-based pro-diversity beliefs, given that instrumentality-based pro-diversity beliefs technically are also grounded in a moral paradigm (i.e. utilitarianism), so suggesting that only justice-based pro-diversity beliefs are moral would be inaccurate. I know that in the literature the "moral" case for diversity is often mentioned as the opposite of the business case and that it thus would be more consistent to label it morality-based pro-diversity beliefs, but labeling it justice-based would be more accurate. 3. Regarding the design of study 3: Given the pool where respondents came from, I assume that not all respondents were German. Do you think that may have influenced the findings, given that they are asked to reflect on the situation in Germany? Is there any way to control of non-Germans gave different responses than Germans? 4. It is sometimes a bit confusing that you focus on instrumentality-based pro-diversity beliefs and look at whether diversity is instrumental. The overlap in terminology is logical but also confusing. Is it an idea to focus on whether diversity is "beneficial" instead of instrumental to enhance the readability? 5. On page 4 and throughout the introduction and the theory, you do raise the question if instrumentality-based pro-diversity beliefs may lead to negative attitudes in case diversity is detrimental, but do not explain the potential reasons why that may be the case. You only briefly speculate about that in the discussion and indicate that more research is needed for that. I can imagine that you don't want to mention those reasons in the theory section because you're not testing the underlying mechanisms, but now it comes across as if you are studying something just for the sake of studying it (see also page 3 where the main rationale for this study is that it hasn't been studied before). I think you can provide a main argument of why instrumentality-based pro-diversity beliefs may backfire in your intro and theory without needing to actually study that potential underlying mechanis, and that doing so would help to make readers understand why your study is important. 6. I appreciate that you now mention "moral or justice-based considerations" as the comparison category before the methods, but just providing those terms without explaining it still doesn't add much. So it would be helpful if you insert a paragraph in which you explain what justice-based pro-diversity beliefs entail. By explaining the/an alternative of instrumentality-based pro-diversity beilefs, readers will also be better able to understand what is meant with instrumentality-based pro-diversity beliefs and what potential problems with it may be. Some textual points: p. 5 last word: heterogeneous --> don't you mean homogeneous? p. 7, 5th line from the bottom: better replace "should" with "may" because it's not a normative argument that you're making here. p. 41, 5th line: weak instead of week p. 50, after (Study 1) remove thus p. 50, after In Study 3 remove however p. 52, asset-driven views is a term you haven't used before. Probably best to just stick to instrumentality-based views or something related that you've mentioned before Reviewer #2: I believe the authors responded reasonably well to my comments. I appreciate that the authors toned down their language throughout the manuscript, that they uploaded their materials one OSF, and that they carried out an additional pre-registered study. I have only some minor comments. 1) In the ethical statement, the authors registered a total of 6 studies. In the present manuscript the authors report, however, only 4 studies one of which (Study 3) has been conducted 2019/2020. Please state in the paper why you did not include the other studies. 2) In study 2, contact experiences have been assessed as well. I am surprised that the authors decide to not include previous contact experiences as a moderator or a co-variate. Particularly, because the authors refer to contact theory in their discussion and state that “… in times of heated political debates strategies involving the promotion of diversity on moral grounds can also backfire and may even lead individuals to more strongly oppose diversity [27]. A potentially more promising alternative could involve the promotion of more inclusive social identity processes.” I think it’s reasonable to assume that individuals reporting more contact experiences with refugees might have a more inclusive identity. 3) Study 4: Was the data part of a larger project? Point 1 is missing in the pre-registration and the Figure suggests that categorization has been assessed as well. Please state whether the same data is used elsewhere. ********** 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: Yes: Hans van Dijk 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 be viewed.] 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 us at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step. |
Revision 2 |
When good for business is not good enough: Effects of pro-diversity beliefs and instrumentality of diversity on intergroup attitudes PONE-D-19-24506R2 Dear Dr. Kauff, Thanks for revising the paper a second time. I am pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it complies with all outstanding technical requirements. I have noticed, however, that the data files that you put on the OSF have the extension ".sav" (SPSS files). SPSS is a licenced software that many colleagues do not have access to. Hence, I strongly encourage you to also make available your data in an open source format (e.g., ".csv"). Within one week, you will receive an e-mail containing information on the amendments required prior to publication. When all required modifications have been addressed, you will receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will proceed to our production department and be scheduled for publication. Shortly after the formal acceptance letter is sent, an invoice for payment will follow. To ensure an efficient production and billing process, please log into Editorial Manager at https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the "Update My Information" link at the top of the page, and update your user information. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org. If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to enable them to help maximize its impact. If they will be preparing press materials for this manuscript, you must inform our press team as soon as possible and 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. With kind regards, Jan De Houwer Academic Editor PLOS ONE |
Formally Accepted |
PONE-D-19-24506R2 When good for business is not good enough: Effects of pro-diversity beliefs and instrumentality of diversity on intergroup attitudes Dear Dr. Kauff: I am pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department. If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper at this point, to enable them to help maximize its impact. If they will be preparing press materials for this manuscript, 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. For any other questions or concerns, please email plosone@plos.org. Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE. With kind regards, PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff on behalf of Dr. Jan De Houwer 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 .