Review Transparency Options
About Review Transparency
Sharing peer review reports and author responses alongside your published article increases transparency and accountability in the scientific process. This can enhance reader trust and provide valuable context for your research.
Transparency Options for "Climate Change Impact on Marine Ecosystems"
Choose how you want to display peer review reports and your responses alongside your published article.
Publish all review reports and your responses with reviewer identities (if reviewers consent)
Benefits
- Highest level of transparency
- Demonstrates confidence in research quality
- Provides full context for readers
- Encourages constructive reviewing
Publish all review reports and your responses, but keep reviewer identities anonymous
Benefits
- Balances transparency with reviewer privacy
- Most commonly selected option
- Protects reviewers from potential conflicts
- Still provides valuable context for readers
Publish only the editor's summary of the review process, not the full reviews
Benefits
- Provides a concise overview of key points
- Filters out potentially harsh or unnecessary comments
- Editor ensures balanced representation
- Streamlined reading experience
Keep the review process private (traditional approach)
Benefits
- Maximum privacy for all participants
- Traditional scientific publishing approach
- Focus solely on the final research output
- Simplifies the publication process
Preview of Anonymous Reviews
PLOS ONE
Peer Review History
Climate Change Impact on Marine Ecosystems
Review Process Summary
This manuscript underwent peer review by 3 reviewers and required 2 rounds of revision before acceptance. The reviewers provided constructive feedback that significantly improved the quality and clarity of the final manuscript.
Reviewer #1
AnonymousSummary
The authors present a comprehensive analysis of climate change impacts on marine ecosystems, with particular focus on coral reefs and coastal habitats. The methodology is sound and the conclusions are well-supported by data, though I have some concerns about the statistical analysis in Section 3.
Major Comments
- The authors should provide more details on the statistical methods used in Section 3
- Figure 4 could be improved to better illustrate temperature variations
- The discussion would benefit from addressing recent findings by Smith et al. (2022)
Author Response
Michael ChenWe thank the reviewer for their constructive feedback. We have added additional details on the statistical methods in Section 3, including confidence intervals and p-values. Figure 4 has been redesigned to more clearly show temperature variations across different regions. We have also expanded our discussion to include the recent findings by Smith et al. (2022) on ocean acidification effects.
Editor Decision
Dr. Sarah JohnsonAfter careful consideration of the reviewer comments and your responses, I am pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been accepted for publication. The revisions have adequately addressed all the concerns raised during the review process, and the manuscript now presents a significant contribution to our understanding of climate change impacts on marine ecosystems.
Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and for your patience throughout the review process.
Additional Settings
Show all rounds of review and revision, not just the final decision
Enable readers to comment on the peer review process after publication
Show how the manuscript evolved in response to reviewer feedback
Display information about review timeline and process statistics
Journal Policy Note
PLOS ONE has a strong preference for transparent peer review. While you may choose any option, the journal encourages at least the "Anonymous Reviews" option. Your choice will not affect the editorial decision on your manuscript.