PCLM-D-25-00450

Modeling Short- and Long-Term Climatic and Non-Climatic Drivers of Wheat Yield in Somalia (1986–2019): Evidence from an ARDL Approach

PLOS Climate

Dear Dr. Abdirashid M. Yousuf,

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 by the two reviewers.

Please submit your revised manuscript by March 16. 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 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,

Benjamin Sultan

Academic Editor

PLOS Climate

Journal Requirements:

1. Please amend your online Financial Disclosure statement. If you did not receive any funding for this study, please simply state: "The authors received no specific funding for this work."

2. Please update your online Competing Interests statement. If you have no competing interests to declare, please state: "The authors have declared that no competing interests exist."

3. In the online submission form, you indicated that your data is available only on request from a third party. Please note that your Data Availability Statement is currently missing contact details for the third party, such as an email address or a link to where data requests can be made. Please update your statement with the missing information.

4. Please provide separate main figure files in .tif or .eps format only and ensure that all files are under our size limit of 10MB.

For more information about how to convert your figure files please see our guidelines: https://journals.plos.org/climate/s/figures

5. If the reviewer comments include a recommendation to cite specific previously published works, please review and evaluate these publications to determine whether they are relevant and should be cited. There is no requirement to cite these works unless the editor has indicated otherwise.

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: 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: My suggestion is to adjust the CUSUM test to find the stable model for the analyses. Also, the references number is 19 and I guess it is little number for the journals. Please improve the number of the literature and the connections in the article.

Reviewer #2: 1. Update the Introduction Section:

The introduction needs substantial revision. It should be updated with more recent statistics, contemporary theoretical perspectives, and current global and regional evidence. The framing of the problem should be clearer, more concise, and logically structured to guide readers toward the study’s objectives.

2. Use the Most Recent Findings and Clearly State the Research Gap:

Please incorporate the most up-to-date empirical studies (preferably within the last 5–7 years). The research gap should be explicitly and accurately identified. Rather than broadly stating that limited research exists, clearly explain what specifically is missing in prior studies (e.g., lack of integrated behavioural and mental health analysis, absence of post-housing assessment, limited mixed-method approaches in Bangladesh).

3. Separate the Literature Review Section:

The literature review should be presented as a distinct section rather than embedded within the introduction. This will improve structure and readability. Organize it thematically (e.g., behavioural experiences, lifestyle instability, mental health outcomes, housing transition effects) and critically engage with prior findings instead of only describing them.

4. Clarify the Importance of the Study and Present the Research Gap Clearly in the Introduction:

The introduction should explicitly articulate the study’s significance—both academically and policy-wise. Clearly state why this research matters in the context of Bangladesh and global child protection discourse. The research gap should be presented logically, culminating in a strong justification for the study objectives.

5. Strengthen the Discussion Section Through Comparison with Existing Literature:

The discussion section should go beyond summarizing results. It should critically compare your findings with previous national and international studies. Highlight where your results align with, extend, or contradict existing evidence, and explain possible contextual reasons for similarities or differences. This will significantly enhance the scholarly contribution and analytical depth of the manuscript.

Overall, the study addresses an important issue, but clearer structure, stronger engagement with recent literature, and deeper analytical discussion are needed to improve its academic quality and impact. I encourage you to revise accordingly.

**********

-->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: Yes: Turgut Tursoy

Reviewer #2: Yes: Dr. Monira Parvin Moon

**********

[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.]

--> -->-->Figure Resubmissions:

-->-->While revising your submission, we strongly recommend that you use PLOS’s NAAS tool (https://ngplosjournals.pagemajik.ai/artanalysis) to test your figure files. NAAS can convert your figure files to the TIFF file type and meet basic requirements (such as print size, resolution), or provide you with a report on issues that do not meet our requirements and that NAAS cannot fix.-->-->

After uploading your figures to PLOS’s NAAS tool - https://ngplosjournals.pagemajik.ai/artanalysis, NAAS will process the files provided and display the results in the "Uploaded Files" section of the page as the processing is complete. If the uploaded figures meet our requirements (or NAAS is able to fix the files to meet our requirements), the figure will be marked as "fixed" above. If NAAS is unable to fix the files, a red "failed" label will appear above. When NAAS has confirmed that the figure files meet our requirements, please download the file via the download option, and include these NAAS processed figure files when submitting your revised manuscript.-->

Modeling Short- and Long-Term Climatic and Non-Climatic Drivers of Wheat Yield in Somalia (1986–2019): Evidence from an ARDL Approach

PCLM-D-25-00450R1

Dear Dr Abdirashid M. Yousuf

We are pleased to inform you that your manuscript 'Modeling Short- and Long-Term Climatic and Non-Climatic Drivers of Wheat Yield in Somalia (1986–2019): Evidence from an ARDL Approach' 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,

Benjamin Sultan

Academic Editor

PLOS Climate

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

Additional Editor Comments (if provided):

Reviewer Comments (if any, and for reference):