Restaurant staff’s knowledge, practices, and attitudes pertaining to food allergy in Qassim region, Saudi Arabia: A cross-sectional analysis

Ghadi A. Alkhalaf; Norah A. Aljuaylan; Jolan S. Alsaud; Boshra A. Aljokaidb; Fatima R. Aljalaood

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0311650

Peer Review History

Original SubmissionDecember 17, 2023
17 Dec 2023 Author Response Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: renamed_10695.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0311650.r001
11 Mar 2024 Decision Letter - Ali B. Mahmoud, Editor PONE-D-23-40795Restaurant staff’s knowledge, practices, and attitudes pertaining to food allergy in Qassim region, Saudi Arabia: A cross-sectional analysisPLOS ONE Dear Dr. Aljuaylan, 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 2024 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file. Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript: A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'. A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'. An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'. If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter. If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols. We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript. Kind regards, Ali B. Mahmoud, Ph.D. 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 https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf 2. Please update your submission to use the PLOS LaTeX template. The template and more information on our requirements for LaTeX submissions can be found at http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/latex. 3. 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. 4. When completing the data availability statement of the submission form, you indicated that you will make your data available on acceptance. We strongly recommend all authors decide on a data sharing plan before acceptance, as the process can be lengthy and hold up publication timelines. Please note that, though access restrictions are acceptable now, your entire data will need to be made freely accessible if your manuscript is accepted for publication. This policy applies to all data except where public deposition would breach compliance with the protocol approved by your research ethics board. If you are unable to adhere to our open data policy, please kindly revise your statement to explain your reasoning and we will seek the editor's input on an exemption. Please be assured that, once you have provided your new statement, the assessment of your exemption will not hold up the peer review process. 5. 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: Yes ******** 2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available? The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English? PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 5. Review Comments to the Author Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters) Reviewer #1: Food allergy work is important and relevant as the number of people with food allergies continues to increase. The article has good information but the discussion of results is limited. The authors need to add more references and comprehensively discuss the results, and clearly identify limitations, future research. Reviewer #2: The manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard Language. I have the following queries or suggestions: Firstly, The authors should identify what is meant by '' scored in the top 50%". On what bases you choose 50%? Secondly, In Multiple logistic regression analysis of manager, worker, and 318 server attitudes (Table 8): the authors used the same variables of knowledge as the same as table 5. Attitudes are commonly measured using Likert scaling, which involves using a scale with multiple equivalent items to produce a summated score. Your responses are in knowledge domains not in attitude domain. Please take this point and clarify the exact domains of the attitude you used. ****** 6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files. If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public. Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy. Reviewer #1: No Reviewer #2: Yes: Moawia Gameraddin ******** [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. Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Review PLOS.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0311650.r002
Revision 1
29 Jun 2024 Author Response Based on the reviewers comment #5 " The authors need to add more references and comprehensively discuss the results, and clearly identify limitations, future research.", the results and discussion has been revised. We have answered the question asked by reviwer2 below: The question: The manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard Language. I have the following queries or suggestions: Firstly, the authors should identify what is meant by " scored in the top 50%". On what bases you choose 50%? Our answer: For the knowledge score, we summed the number of correct answers (out of 19) and used each group’s median score to dichotomize the participants as having more or less knowledge. For the attitude score, we assigned point values to each response as follows: strongly disagree = 1, disagree = 2, unsure = 3, agree = 4, and strongly agree = 5. We then averaged each participant’s response to the five attitude questions. We used each group’s median score to divide participants into those having relatively positive or less positive attitudes. This has been added to the methodology section. Line (394-89) and Table 1 We changed Food service to Foodservice. Line 35: We changed (omitted) to (did not post) Line 36: We changed (varies) to (varied) Line 38: We changed (food safety) to (food allergy measures) Line 59: We add sesame to the list of allergens. Line 151: Remove the word (we) Additionally, Table 6 has been added as it was observed that overall knowledge was not measured. This is very important to determine the need for additional training courses. About this point (Table 1: I suggest you divide the demographic data in more detail. Example: Non-Asian restaurants can be of so many cuisines) A good suggestion, but unfortunately, we cannot make the adjustment now as the data was collected based on the original classification. Response to the Ethical Considerations Regarding Obtaining the Consent: Thank you for your inquiry regarding obtaining the consent. A waiver of documentation of informed consent is requested in accordance with 45 CFR 46.117(c). The proposed research meets the first criterion for the waiver, as the probability and magnitude of harm or discomfort in participation are not greater in and of themselves than those ordinarily encountered in daily life. Additionally, as the research involves no procedures for which written consent is normally required outside the research context, the study also meets the second criterion for waiver. Before conducting the study, we obtained verbal informed consent from the restaurant managers. The member read for the manager a short introduction describing the purpose of the study and how the data will be used. Then, the interviewer asked the manager if he or she agrees to participate in the study. The interview proceeded for those who agreed to participate. The interviewer read a brief recruiting and informed consent script to the worker/server who was identified as a potential participant by the manager. We requested a waiver of written informed consent; thus, neither managers nor workers/servers read the informed consent scripts. Kind regards, Norah Aljuaylan Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.rtf https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0311650.r003
7 Aug 2024 Decision Letter - Ali B. Mahmoud, Editor PONE-D-23-40795R1Restaurant staff’s knowledge, practices, and attitudes pertaining to food allergy in Qassim region, Saudi Arabia: A cross-sectional analysisPLOS ONE Dear Dr. Aljuaylan, 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 Sep 21 2024 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file. Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript: A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'. A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'. An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'. If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter. If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols. We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript. Kind regards, Ali B. Mahmoud, Ph.D. Academic Editor PLOS ONE Journal Requirements: Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice. [Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.] Reviewers' comments: Reviewer's Responses to Questions Comments to the Author 1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation. Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed ******** 2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions? The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available? The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English? PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 6. Review Comments to the Author Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters) Reviewer #1: The revisions are done well. I strongly suggest the authors proof-read the article carefully to correct any issues with writing and grammar. Reviewer #2: I have read the manuscript, all sections are well revised except the abstract and methodology section. In abstract section, the authors should add the main findings rather than other general statements such as (Among the 178 restaurants included in the analysis, 97% of the managers and servers were men, and most had not completed food allergy courses. Notably, 86% of the participants omitted any form of food allergy information from their operations.) this statement should removed and put another main findings instead of it. In methodology section, I suggest to divide the methodology section into subdivisions so as to be easily identified and read. ****** 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: Anirudh Naig 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. Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: report.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0311650.r004
Revision 2
28 Aug 2024 Author Response We thank the reviewers for their valuable comments, which have significantly contributed to the enhancement of our research. In response to your recommendations: Improvement of the Abstract: We have revised the abstract to more clearly and accurately reflect the main findings of the study. General statements have been removed and replaced with specific results that highlight the significance and extent of our findings. Restructuring the Methodology Section: The methodology section has been divided into several subsections to facilitate reading and understanding. Each subsection addresses a specific aspect of the methodology, assisting the reader in following the steps we have taken in an organized and detailed manner. Based on the reviewers comment #5 " The authors need to add more references and comprehensively discuss the results, and clearly identify limitations, future research.", the results and discussion has been revised. We have answered the question asked by reviwer2 below: The question: The manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard Language. I have the following queries or suggestions: Firstly, the authors should identify what is meant by " scored in the top 50%". On what bases you choose 50%? Our answer: For the knowledge score, we summed the number of correct answers (out of 19) and used each group’s median score to dichotomize the participants as having more or less knowledge. For the attitude score, we assigned point values to each response as follows: strongly disagree = 1, disagree = 2, unsure = 3, agree = 4, and strongly agree = 5. We then averaged each participant’s response to the five attitude questions. We used each group’s median score to divide participants into those having relatively positive or less positive attitudes. This has been added to the methodology section. Line (394-89) and Table 1 We changed Food service to Foodservice. Line 35: We changed (omitted) to (did not post) Line 36: We changed (varies) to (varied) Line 38: We changed (food safety) to (food allergy measures) Line 59: We add sesame to the list of allergens. Line 151: Remove the word (we) Additionally, Table 6 has been added as it was observed that overall knowledge was not measured. This is very important to determine the need for additional training courses. About this point (Table 1: I suggest you divide the demographic data in more detail. Example: Non-Asian restaurants can be of so many cuisines) A good suggestion, but unfortunately, we cannot make the adjustment now as the data was collected based on the original classification. Response to the Ethical Considerations Regarding Obtaining the Consent: Thank you for your inquiry regarding obtaining the consent. A waiver of documentation of informed consent is requested in accordance with 45 CFR 46.117(c). The proposed research meets the first criterion for the waiver, as the probability and magnitude of harm or discomfort in participation are not greater in and of themselves than those ordinarily encountered in daily life. Additionally, as the research involves no procedures for which written consent is normally required outside the research context, the study also meets the second criterion for waiver. Before conducting the study, we obtained verbal informed consent from the restaurant managers. The member read for the manager a short introduction describing the purpose of the study and how the data will be used. Then, the interviewer asked the manager if he or she agrees to participate in the study. The interview proceeded for those who agreed to participate. The interviewer read a brief recruiting and informed consent script to the worker/server who was identified as a potential participant by the manager. We requested a waiver of written informed consent; thus, neither managers nor workers/servers read the informed consent scripts. Kind regards, Norah Aljuaylan Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0311650.r005
24 Sep 2024 Decision Letter - Ali B. Mahmoud, Editor Restaurant staff’s knowledge, practices, and attitudes pertaining to food allergy in Qassim region, Saudi Arabia: A cross-sectional analysis PONE-D-23-40795R2 Dear Dr. Aljuaylan, 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. If you have any questions relating to publication charges, 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 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, Ali B. Mahmoud, Ph.D. Academic Editor PLOS ONE Additional Editor Comments (optional): Reviewers' comments: Reviewer's Responses to Questions Comments to the Author 1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation. Reviewer #1: 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 ****** 3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: Yes ****** 4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available? The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified. Reviewer #1: 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 ****** 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: (No Response) ****** 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: Anirudh Naig ******** https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0311650.r006
Formally Accepted
27 Sep 2024 Acceptance Letter - Ali B. Mahmoud, Editor PONE-D-23-40795R2 PLOS ONE Dear Dr. Aljuaylan, 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 If revisions are needed, the production department will contact you directly to resolve them. If no revisions are needed, you will receive an email when the publication date has been set. At this time, we do not offer pre-publication proofs to authors during production of the accepted work. Please keep in mind that we are working through a large volume of accepted articles, so please give us a few weeks 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. 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. Ali B. Mahmoud Academic Editor PLOS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0311650.r007

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 .