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
PRIVACY POLICY
We have updated our Privacy Policy. Read more
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:
Based on the information provided in the introduction, the rationale for this particular study is unclear and needs strengthening. Why do we need to understand how different factors influence the behaviour of young puppies when previous studies have shown that performance on tasks at this age has poor predictive power for later behaviour? I recommend that the authors reframe the introduction to clearly outline what research on puppy testing has already been published and why this particular study is necessary and important – I’m assuming it is to understand sources of variability so that test performance can be improved, but this isn’t clear from what is written.
FROM THE PEER REVIEWS:
You really need some clear definitions of restoration early on in the introduction and need to cite the most recent SER [Society for Ecological Restoration]] guidelines. I think you need to clearly distinguish between restoration ecology and ecological restoration and define what you mean by a restoration project.
AUTHOR RESPONSE:
Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with the reviewer and have now defined the terminology around active restoration vs rehabilitation by referring to the SER guideline documents. See LN 67 – 74, the opening lines of the introduction.
Coral reef restoration efforts in Latin American countries and territories
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.