PCLM-D-23-00008

Climate Change and Agriculture Nexus in Bangladesh: Evidence from ARDL and ECM Techniques

PLOS Climate

Dear Dr. Eyasmin,

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.

==============================

EDITOR: Please insert comments here and delete this placeholder text when finished. Be sure to:

• Indicate which changes you require for acceptance versus which changes you recommend
• Address any conflicts between the reviews so that it's clear which advice the authors should follow
• Provide specific feedback from your evaluation of the manuscript

​Please ensure that your decision is justified on PLOS Climate’s publication criteria and not, for example, on novelty or perceived impact.

==============================

Please submit your revised manuscript by Apr 28 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,

Abdul Rehman, PhD

Academic Editor

PLOS Climate

Journal Requirements:

1. Request for copyediting.

2. Please amend your Data Availability Statement and indicate where the data may be found.

Additional Editor Comments (if provided):

[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: Yes

**********

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: Yes

**********

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: The paper addresses an important issue regarding the Climate Change and Agriculture Nexus in Bangladesh. Overall, this research is promising but few aspects need further improvements. The specific comments are as follows.

1. The presentation is relatively poor; especially the introduction is causally presented. The introduction is lacking the explanation of novel contribution.

2. The literature review is loose. Many recent studies are missing. Authors are suggested to add recent literature. For instance, check out the following studies:

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.resourpol.2022.102745

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11356-021-14641-8

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.resourpol.2020.101902

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.121714

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2021.128109

https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-022-18541-3

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2022.134178

https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-021-17579-z

https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-021-15481-2

3. The economic rationale of main findings is not comprehensive. The authors are advised to compare the findings with previous works.

4. The conclusions and the policy implications are too loose. The authors are suggested to rewrite this section.

Reviewer #2: This papers entitled ‘Climate Change and Agriculture Nexus in Bangladesh: Evidence from ARDL and ECM Techniques’ investigated the effect of several climate change indicators on agriculture in Bangladesh since 1980-2014. The topic is good and currently global warming and environmental change becomes hot issue to discuss in detail especially for agricultural sector where most of rural population living in rural areas and their primary source of income is farming in develop nations, including Bangladesh. Further this research tends to bring our attention to a genuine issue of the developing countries and how can better deal with climate change adaptation for their sustainable livelihoods in the future.

There are few minor changes suggested to authors which should be considered while revising the manuscript.

1. Section 3. Data and Methodology, I will suggest to authors explain Unit root test for reader convenience and interest, instead Unit Root test basic information provided in the next section.

2. Conclusion section should constitute a separate heading or at least a separate subheading within the last section.

3. Implications are not clear! Please Suggestions to the Federal or local government? Bangladesh is addressing this issue at national level and what are policy implications of this study for the whole country.

4. Readability is one of the most important part of writing. Therefore, I strongly encourage authors to carefully re-read all sections of the manuscript for improving sentence structure and its English grammar

5. Lastly, I encourage authors to put line numbers in the manuscript for the reviewers to refer to specific point in manuscript and to save time.

**********

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: No

**********

[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.

<quillbot-extension-portal></quillbot-extension-portal>

Climate Change and Agriculture Nexus in Bangladesh: Evidence from ARDL and ECM Techniques

PCLM-D-23-00008R1

Dear Mrs. Eyasmin,

We are pleased to inform you that your manuscript 'Climate Change and Agriculture Nexus in Bangladesh: Evidence from ARDL and ECM Techniques' 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,

Abdul Rehman, PhD

Academic Editor

PLOS Climate

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

-

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 #1: (No Response)

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 #1: (No Response)

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

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 #1: (No Response)

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 #1: (No Response)

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 #1: The revised version has addressed majority of my concerns. It can be accepted.

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

**********

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 #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

**********

<quillbot-extension-portal></quillbot-extension-portal>