We’re here to support researchers. Visit our COVID-19 page for links to emerging research, updates about our policies, and more resources related to the pandemic. View the page
When you choose to publish with PLOS, your research makes an impact. Make your work accessible to all, without restrictions, and accelerate scientific discovery with options like preprints and published peer review that make your work more Open.
Making the review process transparent gives the scientific community a chance to learn more about how other experts are reviewing manuscripts. Read robust examples of peer review, organized by manuscript section.
FROM THE PEER REVIEWS:
The discussion should focus on the physiological and sociodemographic factors that may contribute to the increase in maternal caffeine intake. The study results should be confronted with others in the literature. However, the discussion has a strong focus on the adverse effects of maternal habits on the fetus and child that I consider to be more suitable for the introduction.
Caffeine, alcohol, khat, and tobacco use during pregnancy in Butajira, South Central Ethiopia
FROM THE PEER REVIEWS:
Importantly, the limitations of the study should be reported. Furthermore, the authors should revise the discussion and leave only the most closely related to the data obtained in this study. For example, weight loss was not assessed in this study, but it occupies almost one page in the discussion.
FROM THE PEER REVIEWS:
The 2nd paragraph [of the Discussion] rather overreaches itself by stating that burnout could be ‘prevented or minimised’. Given that burnout is always prevalent at a certain rate, it is highly improbable that it could be prevented. Minimisation of burnout may be possible, but this is not demonstrated by this paper, which does not examine interventions. This must be stated more cautiously.
One year after introducing published peer review, over 3,300 authors of PLOS articles have chosen to publish their peer review history.
Learn more about the benefits and different types of transparent peer review.