From the inbox:
Dear John,
On behalf of PLOS and the PLOS ONE editorial team, I would like to thank you for participating in the peer review process this past year at PLOS ONE. We very much appreciate your valuable input in 2014. We know there are many claims on your time and expertise but with your help, we have continued to publish an influential, lively and highly accessed Open Access journal. Simply put, we could not do it without you and the thousands of other volunteers for PLOS ONE and the other PLOS journals who graciously contributed time reviewing manuscripts.
A public “Thank You” to our 2014 reviewers – including you – was published in February 2015.(2015) PLOS ONE 2014 Reviewer Thank You. PLoS ONE 10(2): e0121093. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0121093
Your name is listed in the Supporting Information file associated with the article. I hope that you will be able to use this letter, along with the article citation, to claim the credit and recognition you deserve within your institution for supporting PLOS ONE and Open Access publishing.
From the webpage:
PLOS and the PLOS ONE editorial team would like to express our tremendous gratitude to all those individuals who participated in the peer review process this past year at PLOS ONE. 2014 was an amazing year for PLOS ONE; during the year, over 80,000 reviewers from around the world and across disciplines provided their expert input that led to publication of over 30,000 articles.
The names of our 2014 PLOS ONE reviewers are listed in S1 Reviewer List. It’s a lengthy list rivaled only by the depth of our gratitude. Thank you to all our reviewers for generously sharing your time, insight and expertise with PLOS ONE authors in the evaluation of their work. Your efforts are a key reason PLOS ONE is a successful publication and continues to be a force for positive change in scientific and medical publishing.
I clicked on the S1 Reviewer List *.txt link and this is what it looks like (you can find my name at the bottom):
It’s a lengthy list rivaled only by ... it's lack of formatting.
