What Are Established Protocols for Independent Scientific Review

Guidelines for Reviewers

PLOS ONE relies on members of the scientific research community to assess the validity of articles under consideration through peer review.

Invitation to Review

PLOS One editors select potential reviewers based on their expertise in research areas relevant to the manuscript nether consideration. Reviewer invitations are sent by e-mail from the journal'south Editorial Manager submission system. Use the links in the invitation email to accept or decline, or check the "New Reviewer Invitations" folder on your Reviewer Master Menu screen in Editorial Manager. Accept an invitation only if you have the knowledge, time and objectivity necessary to provide an unbiased cess of the inquiry. In agreeing to complete a review, you also requite permission to publish your review under a Artistic Commons Attribution CC BY license.

Our Peer Review Process

PLOS One practices unmarried-blind peer review by default, merely offers opportunities for authors and reviewers to participate in signed and published peer review.

Our peer review model

	Single-blind peer review During the peer review procedure yous will know the authors' names, just your proper name will not be shared. Your review volition appear in the editorial determination letter where it tin be read by the authors and other reviewers.
	Signed peer review You can cull to sign your name to your review when you submit it. Remember, if yous sign your name the authors and other reviewers of the manuscript will run across it. If the authors choose to publish their peer review history your proper name volition accompany your comments alongside the published article.
	Portable If the authors subsequently cull to transfer their manuscript to another PLOS periodical your review will back-trail it. Y'all may hear from editors at another PLOS journal for re-review. Reviewers for any PLOS journal should be willing to have their reviews considered by the editors of some other PLOS journal.
	Published peer review history If the authors decide to publish their peer review history, the editorial decision letter, including your review, will appear alongside the published article. Your proper noun will not appear unless yous cull to sign your review.

Best practices for reviewers

	Declaring competing interests A competing involvement is annihilation that interferes with or could be perceived equally potentially interfering with, a thorough and objective assessment of a manuscript. Common examples of competing interests may include: A recent or electric current collaboration with whatsoever of the authors Direct contest or a history of scientific conflict with whatsoever of the authors An opportunity to profit financially from the work Do non accept a review assignment if you lot have a competing interest, or don't feel able to give an objective assessment. If yous're unsure whether your relationship qualifies as a competing interest, contact the journal office for advice. If nosotros ask yous to complete the review anyhow, exist sure to declare the competing interest when y'all submit your review.
	Crediting collaborators Co-reviewing is a great way to gain peer review feel under the mentorship of an experienced reviewer and nosotros encourage this collaboration. If you had help completing the review you lot must share your collaborator's proper noun with the journal when you submit the review, either by entering information technology in question 2 nether the 'Confidential comments to Editor' section, or via email. Be conscientious not to include your collaborator's proper name in the text of the review itself. Competing interests and confidentiality policies apply to all reviewers.
	Confidentiality Keep manuscripts and correspondence confidential and do not share information nigh submissions with whatever one else unless previously agreed with the editor. We await that reviewers will non make utilise of whatsoever cloth or take advantage of any information they gain through the peer review process. Read the PLOS Confidentiality Policy.
	Reviewing a manuscript yous've previously reviewed If yous reviewed the article at another journal, consider the manuscript as a new submission unless instructed otherwise. Go on in mind that it may take been revised since the last time you evaluated it, and PLOS ONE's criteria for publication may differ from those of the other journal. When you submit your review, permit the editor know that you reviewed a previous version of the manuscript at some other journal.
	Time to review Aim to complete your review within 10 days. If yous need more time to perform the review, please email us as soon as possible.

Receiving credit

In choosing to volunteer as a peer reviewer for PLOS, you are helping to support free and open access to rigorous enquiry. We couldn't be more grateful!

ORCID Reviewer Credit

Link your PLOS reviewer account to your ORCID tape. Set up syncing to accept reviewer action automatically posted to your ORCID contour review activity. This record will confirm that you completed a review for the periodical, but won't publish the content of your review.

How to Submit a Peer Review in Editorial Manager

PLOS ONE uses a structured reviewer form to aid reviewers focus on our publication criteria and amend the efficiency of peer review. Preview the form. The form contains ii sections:

Comments to the author

Answers to the questions in this department are required and will exist included in the determination letter of the alphabet to the author. For questions 1-four select a response from the drop down (east.g., "Aye," "No," "I don't know," "N/A") and provide whatever details you wish. Enter the chief text of your peer review in question 5, "Review Comments to the Author."

Comments to the editor

Use this section to declare whatever potential or perceived competing interests. You lot'll also have the choice to list anyone who collaborated with you on the peer review, and indicate whether you think the submission should be highlighted on the PLOS One webpage if it goes on to be published. This volition not play any role in the editorial decision-making process or be shared with the authors.

PLOS ONE does not let confidential comments other than the declaration of competing interests. If you have confidential concerns relating to publication or research ethics, please contact us at plosone@plos.org.

Reviews must be entered in the submission system. Email the journal role if you are having trouble accessing the manuscript or entering your comments.

Helpful Resources

How to have or decline an invitation to review

Reviewer invitations are sent by electronic mail from the submission system. Use the links in the email to accept or decline.

How to submit your review

Reviews must exist entered in the submission system. Email the journal office if you are having trouble accessing the manuscript or inbound your comments.

How to view figures and supporting information in the PDF

The compiled submission PDF includes low-resolution preview images of the figures afterwards the reference listing. These allow yous to download the entire submission every bit rapidly every bit possible. Click the link at the superlative of each preview page to download a loftier-resolution version of each figure. Links to download Supporting Information files are also available subsequently the reference list.

Reviewing Registered Reports

Registered Reports are main research articles in which the methods and proposed analyses are peer reviewed prior to conducting experiments, information collection or analysis. The PLOS One publication criteria employ to Registered Reports as they would to whatever other research submitted to the periodical, only the peer review process is slightly unlike. Assessment takes place in ii stages and, if accepted, results in two linked publications.

1. Registered Report Protocol	2. Registered Report
You'll review a manuscript reporting the study design, rationale, timeline, proposed methodology for information collection and analysis, and where applicative, ethical blessing for the work.	You'll review a manuscript reporting the methods and findings of the study originally outlined in the Registered Written report Protocol.
Peer review aims to ensure that the proposed enquiry is rigorous, that the methodology and analysis are audio, and that the resulting study will meet the criteria for publication. Consider: Is the rationale for the proposed study clear and valid? Is the protocol technically sound? Will information technology effectively attain its aims, and exam the stated hypotheses? Is the methodology viable and detailed enough to make the piece of work replicable?	Peer review focuses on adherence to the Registered Written report Protocol and the appropriateness of any deviations. Consider: Have the authors followed the procedures outlined in their Registered Report Protocol? If not, practice the changes brand sense? Are there any additional experiments or exploratory results not outlined in the Registered Report Protocol? If and then, were they reasonable and methodologically audio? Are the conclusions supported by the data, and do they address the hypothesis from the original Registered Report Protocol?
Preview the Protocol Reviewer Form (PDF)	Preview the Registered Report Reviewer Form (PDF)

Reviewing Lab Protocols

Lab Protocols describe reusable methodologies for experimental and computational techniques.They typically consist of a protocol on the protocols.io platform and a PLOS ONE manuscript that contextualizes it, but authors can elect to publish on protocols.io afterwards manuscript submission.

The PLOS ONE publication criteria apply to Lab Protocols as they would to any other inquiry submitted to the periodical, simply the peer review process is generally expedited and typically carried out by ane internal Academic Editor and one external reviewer.

Lab Protocols are eligible for both signed and published peer review.

You will review the manuscript, while referencing the protocol on protocols.io or in PDF format as a supplementary information file.

Peer review aims to ensure that the manuscript complies with the submission guidelines and publication criteria for Lab Protocols.

Consider:

Is the protocol of utility to the inquiry community?
Does it link to a protocol on protocols.io and is this attached in PDF format as a SI file?
Are the methods and reagents described sufficiently?
Are the controls and sample sizes appropriate?
Practise the authors demonstrate that the method is validated, either by linking to at least i supporting peer-reviewed publication, or by providing advisable supporting data?
If the manuscript contains new information, take the authors made this data fully bachelor?

Reviewing Study Protocols

Study Protocols describe detailed plans and proposals for inquiry projects that take not yet generated results. They consist of a unmarried commodity on PLOS ONE that tin can be referenced in time to come enquiry.

The PLOS ONE publication criteria apply to Study Protocols as they would to any other research submitted to the journal. Study Protocols are eligible for both signed and published peer review.

Study Protocols submitted with proof of ethics approval (if required) and external funding by a funder that has independently peer reviewed the protocol are typically accepted without further external peer review. If, however, the journal staff decide that further review is necessary, reviewers will be invited to ensure that the Study Protocol complies with the submission guidelines and publication criteria

Consider:

The protocol prerequisites: the research study should not have generated results, nor should participant recruitment or data collection be complete.
Are the required upstanding standards met?
Does the manuscript provide valid rationale for the planned or ongoing report, with clearly identified and justified research questions?
Is the protocol technically sound and planned in a style that volition lead to a meaningful outcome and let testing of the stated hypotheses?
Have the authors described where all data underlying the findings will be fabricated available when the study is complete?
Does the manuscript title contain the word "Protocol"?
Is the methodology viable and does the description provide sufficient methodological detail for the protocol to be reproduced and replicated?
Are any recommended checklists provided as SI files?
Have the authors registered on a research platform that is appropriate for the report type, like OSF, for example?
For clinical trials, is the trial registered and has the registration number been provided? Has the author provided the required SI files?
For systematic reviews and meta-analyses, is the PRISMA-P checklist provided and consummate? Take the authors opted to register with PROSPERO?

Writing the review

The purpose of the review is to provide the editors with an skilful stance regarding the validity and quality of the manuscript under consideration. The review should also supply authors with explicit feedback on how to improve their papers so that they will be acceptable for publication in PLOS ONE . As you write, consider the following points:

What are the main claims of the newspaper and how pregnant are they for the subject field?
Are the claims properly placed in the context of the previous literature? Have the authors treated the literature fairly?
Do the information and analyses fully support the claims? If not, what other evidence is required?
PLOS ONE encourages authors to publish detailed protocols and algorithms as supporting information online. Do whatever particular methods used in the manuscript warrant such handling? If a protocol is already provided, for instance for a randomized controlled trial, are there whatsoever important deviations from it? If and then, take the authors explained adequately why the deviations occurred?
If the paper is considered unsuitable for publication in its present class, does the study itself show sufficient potential that the authors should exist encouraged to resubmit a revised version?
Are original data deposited in appropriate repositories and accession/version numbers provided for genes, proteins, mutants, diseases, etc.?
Does the study conform to whatever relevant guidelines such as Consort, MIAME, QUORUM, STROBE, and the Fort Lauderdale agreement?
Are details of the methodology sufficient to allow the experiments to be reproduced?
Is whatever software created by the authors freely available?
Is the manuscript well organized and written clearly enough to exist accessible to non-specialists?
Is it your opinion that this manuscript contains an NIH-defined experiment of Dual Apply concern?

Although confidential comments to the editors are respected, whatever remarks that might help to strengthen the newspaper should be directed to the authors themselves.

Revisions

We oftentimes ask the original reviewers to evaluate revised manuscripts and the authors' response to reviewer comments. Nosotros hope that you'll make yourself available for re-review and questions from the editors.

Editing reviewers' reports

The editors and PLOS staff will not change any reviewer comments that are intended for authors to read, except with reviewer approval prior to the conclusion alphabetic character being sent. For example, we may request changes if language is deemed inappropriate for professional communication, or if the comments comprise data considered confidential, such as competing interest declarations.

The Editorial Process

Decision process

The editors make the concluding decision on whether to publish each submission based on the reviewers' comments, the PLOS ONE criteria for publication, and their ain assessment of the manuscript.

Conflicting reviews

If reviewers announced to disagree fundamentally, the editors may choose to share all the reviews with each of the reviewers and asking additional comments that may help the editors to reach a conclusion. Decisions are not necessarily made according to majority rule. Experts may disagree, and it is the chore of the Editor to brand a decision. Editors evaluate reviewer recommendations and comments aslope comments by the authors and material that may not have been made bachelor to reviewers. Please know that your recommendation has been duly considered and your service is appreciated, even if the final decision does not accordance with your review.

Assistance

For more tips on peer review become to the Reviewer Eye, and sign up to the Peer Review Toolbox.

If you accept questions or concerns nearly the manuscript you are reviewing, or if y'all need assistance submitting the review, please email us plosone@plos.org.

waddlemannot.blogspot.com

Source: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/reviewer-guidelines