PCLM-D-23-00001

Human migration on a heating planet: a scoping review

PLOS Climate

Dear Dr. Issa,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS Climate. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS Climate’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Thank you for submitting your article - it is an interesting, timely, and important topic. You will see that both reviewers enjoyed and valued your article. Both reviewers have a few minor - but important - suggested revisions. I recommend that you make all of their suggested revisions, as I think that it will improve the paper. Thanks again for a great paper.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Mar 26 2023 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at climate@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pclm/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

• A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.
• A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.
• An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Sherilee L. Harper, PhD

Academic Editor

PLOS Climate

Journal Requirements:

1. Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice.

2. Please provide figure files in .tif or .eps format.

For more information about figure files please see our guidelines:

https://journals.plos.org/climate/s/figures 

https://journals.plos.org/climate/s/figures#loc-file-requirements

3. Tables should not be uploaded as individual files. Please remove these files and include the Tables in your manuscript file as editable, cell-based objects. For more information about how to format tables, see our guidelines:

https://journals.plos.org/climate/s/tables

4. We have noticed that you have uploaded Supporting Information files, but you have not included a list of legends. Please add a full list of legends for your Supporting Information files after the references list.

Additional Editor Comments (if provided):

Thank you for submitting your article - it is an interesting, timely, and important topic. You will see that both reviewers enjoyed and valued your article. Both reviewers have a few minor - but important - suggested revisions. I recommend that you make all of their suggested revisions, as I think that it will improve the paper.

Thanks again for a great paper.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Does this manuscript meet PLOS Climate’s publication criteria? Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions? The manuscript must describe methodologically and ethically rigorous research with conclusions that are appropriately drawn based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: N/A

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available (please refer to the Data Availability Statement at the start of the manuscript PDF file)?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception. The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: No

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS Climate does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: Thank you for the opportunity to read & review this well written systematic review of scholarly publications on links between extreme heat and migration. The methods used by the authors appear to be sound in terms of collection and analysis. Their interpretation of the inventory of documents assessed is logical and presented in a readable fashion. I think it would be straightforward for other authors to follow the same methods, create a similar inventory, and arrive at similar conclusions – the key characteristics of a good systematic review.

The only question I have for the authors is about Figure 2 which is offered on page 10 with no elaboration in the text. The figure is very text heavy, and takes a bit of work to interpret. The way the figure is designed, the best documented pathway by which migrants are exposed to extreme heat – outdoor employment, especially in agriculture – is buried within it, when it might be given visible prominence in the figure. That said, I am not sure that the figure is necessary for the success of this article. But, if the authors & editors wish to keep it, I would encourage the authors to simplify the Figure and reduce the text elements in it, and add a paragraph of text in the body of the document explaining it.

Reviewer #2: This is an exceptionally well-conducted scoping review that makes an important contribution to the evidence base. The complexities of heat, humidity, attribution and migration are handled carefully.

Some comments follow:

Figure 2 - it is not clear if this conceptual framework was developed solely for, or as a result of, this scoping review. Either way, it is under-utilized in this manuscript, and I'm puzzled by its placement in the "characteristics of included publications" section. I would expect to see it in the discussion section, where it could be useful in helping to organize the material covered in this section.

Suggestions about specific items in the manuscript:

Page 8. "We differentiated between studies that explicitly focus on heat and human migration, and

studies that only briefly mention this relationship (for example, whilst focusing mostly on adaptation)." This sentence is unclear. What does "differentiated" mean - were both types of studies included, but analyzed separately? Was the second type of study excluded?

Page 8. The concepts of "narrative synthesis methodology" and "qualitative thematic analysis" need accompanying methodological references.

Page 14. When modelling migration trends based on temperature rise and the associated decline in

agricultural productivity in Brazil, it was projected that under a low-emission scenario, aggregate

migration rates would be 9.65% higher – than what?

Page 14. "As a result, people are unable to migrate, thus “trapped” in a geographic location A similar situation was identified in rural Burkina Faso, where heat waves were associated with a decline in international mobility" This is a sentence fragment and I find the word "trapped" unclear.

Page 14. However, 62% (172/278) of respondents mentioned that their decision whether or not to return to the Marshall Islands in the future was influenced by climate change more broadly, of which heat is identified – what is “heat” in this context? Increasing heat, chance of heat waves?

Page 15. “Combined they seem to suggest mixed effects.” This is a weak sentence.

Page 24. "Finally, there are a number of geographical reasons not represented in the literature and thus this review - India, central Africa and central Asia, among others; as such, caution must be taken if extrapolating the findings." “Reasons” should be “regions.”

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes: Denise Thomson

**********

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

Human migration on a heating planet: a scoping review

PCLM-D-23-00001R1

Dear Dr Issa,

We are pleased to inform you that your manuscript 'Human migration on a heating planet: a scoping review' has been provisionally accepted for publication in PLOS Climate.

Before your manuscript can be formally accepted you will need to complete some formatting changes, which you will receive in a follow-up email from a member of our team. 

Please note that your manuscript will not be scheduled for publication until you have made the required changes, so a swift response is appreciated.

IMPORTANT: The editorial review process is now complete. PLOS will only permit corrections to spelling, formatting or significant scientific errors from this point onwards. Requests for major changes, or any which affect the scientific understanding of your work, will cause delays to the publication date of your manuscript.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact climate@plos.org.

Thank you again for supporting Open Access publishing; we are looking forward to publishing your work in PLOS Climate.

Best regards,

Sherilee L. Harper, PhD

Academic Editor

PLOS Climate

***********************************************************

Thank you for your revised manuscript. As you will see the reviewer was pleased with your revisions.

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to the journal - I believe that it will make a valuable contribution to the literature.

Reviewer Comments (if any, and for reference):

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. Does this manuscript meet PLOS Climate’s publication criteria? Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions? The manuscript must describe methodologically and ethically rigorous research with conclusions that are appropriately drawn based on the data presented.

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #2: N/A

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available (please refer to the Data Availability Statement at the start of the manuscript PDF file)?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception. The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS Climate does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #2: Thank you for your response to reviewers' comments. I am pleased to recommend acceptance of this manuscript.

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #2: No

**********