LAUSR

After this article [1] was published, concerns were raised about whether the study meets internationally accepted standards of animal research ethics, as is required per PLOS ONE’s Editorial Policy. Specifically, questions were raised as to whether the implants and prosthetics evaluated in the study would offer clinical benefits for dogs as compared to conventional eye removal procedures, so as to justify the reported research. Questions were also raised about the scientific and/or clinical justification for using naïve dogs instead of clinical cases to achieve the study’s objectives. The ethics statement in [1] reports that the animal experiments were approved by the Chungbuk National University Animal Care and Use Committees (Number: CBNUA-115518-01) of Laboratory Animal Research Center at Chungbuk National University (Cheongju, Korea). The article did not discuss the above issues which have implications for adherence of the study to PLOS ONE’s policies on animal research ethics. In addition, questions have been raised about aspects of the methods, results, and conclusions: