http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6942-386X
Peer Review History
| Original SubmissionSeptember 20, 2019 |
|---|
|
PONE-D-19-26580 Human and climatic drivers affect spatial fishing patterns in a multiple-use marine protected area: the Galapagos Marine Reserve PLOS ONE Dear Dr. Castrejón, Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’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. I found this to be a really interesting study. The inclusion of social drivers was especially interesting. However, both reviewers have flagged a number of issues that need to be addressed before the manuscript can be published. The main issue with this manuscript is that it is just far too long and wordy. It would be much more accessible for the reader if it was written in a more concise manner. Instead, it is very repetitive and often includes details that are not germane to the actual study. The Discussion is especially repetitive and in need of some serious editing. Both reviewers have provided very detailed comments to improve the clarity of the paper and assist the authors in their revisions. I have also provided extensive editorial comments (PLoS editorial comment file) to assist the authors. I strongly encourage the authors to consider all the comments provided when making your revisions. We would appreciate receiving your revised manuscript by Dec 16 2019 11:59PM. When you are ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file. If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. To enhance the reproducibility of your results, we recommend that if applicable you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io, where a protocol can be assigned its own identifier (DOI) such that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:
Please note while forming your response, if your article is accepted, you may have the opportunity to make the peer review history publicly available. The record will include editor decision letters (with reviews) and your responses to reviewer comments. If eligible, we will contact you to opt in or out. We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript. Kind regards, Heather M. Patterson, Ph.D. Academic Editor PLOS ONE Journal Requirements: 1. When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at http://www.journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and http://www.journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf 2. We note that you have indicated that data from this study are available upon request. PLOS only allows data to be available upon request if there are legal or ethical restrictions on sharing data publicly. For more information on unacceptable data access restrictions, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-unacceptable-data-access-restrictions. In your revised cover letter, please address the following prompts: a) If there are ethical or legal restrictions on sharing a de-identified data set, please explain them in detail (e.g., data contain potentially sensitive information, data are owned by a third-party organization, etc.) and who has imposed them (e.g., an ethics committee). Please also provide contact information for a data access committee, ethics committee, or other institutional body to which data requests may be sent. b) If there are no restrictions, please upload the minimal anonymized data set necessary to replicate your study findings as either Supporting Information files or to a stable, public repository and provide us with the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers. For a list of acceptable repositories, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-recommended-repositories. We will update your Data Availability statement on your behalf to reflect the information you provide. [Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.] Reviewers' comments: Reviewer's Responses to Questions Comments to the Author 1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions? The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately 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? The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). 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 ONE 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: Review of PONE-D-19-26580. “Human and climatic drivers affect spatial fishing patterns in a multiple-use marine protected area: the Galapagos Marine Reserve”. Castrejon, M. and A. Charles This study evaluated how the spatiotemporal allocation of fishing effort for lobsters in the Galapagos multiple-use Marine Protected Area was affected by the interaction of diverse climatic and human drivers, before and after implementation of no-take zones. The study used GIS data on fishing effort and BRTs to attempt to identify how these drivers affected spatial fishing patterns. The paper concludes that the boom-and-bust exploitation of the sea cucumber fishery and the global financial crisis (2007-2009), rather than no-take zone implementation, were the most important drivers affecting the distribution of fishing effort for lobsters across the archipelago. The study is spatially and temporally extensive (most of the Galapagos Islands, 1997-2011), the data are fairly well-analyzed and interpreted, and the manuscript is well-written. I have no major disagreements with the conclusions. I also have some sympathy with the suggestions that the MPA network placement could be revisited or even revised, and outside the network TURFS encouraged. My comments are mostly to assist the authors with publication. Major Comments. 1. This is a paper that, in effect, quantifies spatial and temporal trends in fishing effort of a lobster fishery in a developing country. Yet the emphasis chosen is how this data informs effects of MPA implementation. It is highly commendable that the study includes before and after implementation data. In fact, this is such an important aspect of the study, I would recommend that the authors stress this point more in the paper. However, this MPA network is also well-known as a “classic” case where fishers ensured that no-take zones were NOT placed where fishers fished (Edgar et al 2004 Ref. 22 in this manuscript). That is, it is a case where you might NOT expect much change in spatial effort in the lobster fishery pre- and post-implementation of the MPA network (which is what they found). This very important point is not even mentioned until Lines 999-1010 in the Discussion. I recommend that you mention this much earlier in the paper, probably in the Abstract and Introduction. 2. You place a substantial amount of faith in the “explanatory” powers of your BRTs. This needs to be tempered a fraction. Table 4 indicates that the deviance explained by the BRTs is 29.47% (Regional), 35.73% (PV), 32.66% (PA) and 15.74% (BM). If I understand Figures 7-10 and Table 4 correctly, this amount of deviance explained is then partitioned among 14 potential explanatory predictor variables. Thus, Distance from Port, your strongest driver in the Regional analysis, explains 22.4% of 29.47% (i.e. 6.6%) of the variance. For BM, your strongest driver, Longitude, explains about 17% of 15.74% (i.e. 2.7%). Clearly all of the weaker drivers “explain” very small percentages of the spatial trends. Thus, describing small peaks and troughs in the trends shown in individual panels in Figs. 7-10 is almost describing details unnecessarily. That said, I agree that the major 6 drivers in the BRTs are as you indicate at Lines 1045-47. 3. The spatial scale at which you measure effort (2.25 km2) may be rather coarse to be making confident statements about the lack of evidence for “fishing the line”. Many of the studies of spillover (see references cited below at Line 86) often report this effect at much smaller spatial scales than this. You should at least acknowledge this point. 4. The Discussion is far too long and repetitive (17 pages, with a Summary of almost 7 pages). This should be condensed considerably. 5. Lines 93-97 (Introduction) and 952-954 (Discussion) “…to our knowledge, no study has examined yet how fishers respond to those situations in which they have to cope simultaneously with implementation of an MPA, and with the interaction of external drivers…”. A relevant, similar, example is the perceived effect of the rezoning of Australia’s Great Barrier Reef Marine Park in 2004 on local fisheries described by Fletcher WJ et al (2015) Large-scale expansion of no-take closures within the Great Barrier Reef has not enhanced fishery production. Ecol. Appl. 25: 1187-1196 and critiqued by Hughes TP et al (2016) A critique of claims for negative impacts of marine protected areas on fisheries. Ecol. Appl. 26: 637-641. I would recommend that you cite these two papers. Minor Comments. Abstract. Line 30. MP Area (omit s). Line 31. Note change in font size of text at full stop. Line 37. Unfeasible (not infeasible). Introduction Line 73. “…pay greater attention to the human dimensions of MPAs [10,11]…” In addition references 10 and 11 cited, both by the authors of the current paper, a very relevant example possibly worth citing here would be: Alcala A.C. and G.R. Russ (2006). No-take marine reserves and reef fisheries management in the Philippines: A new people power revolution. Ambio 35(5): 245-254. Line 86 (and 198). In addition to the Kellner reference (15) on spillover and fishing the line, which is a modelling paper, and Ref. 26 (line 198) and Ref. 70 (line 1264) regarding spillover, three excellent empirical papers on spillover that could be cited are the review by Halpern BS et al (2010) Spillover from marine reserves and the replenishment of fished stocks. Env. Cons. 36: 268-276; Goni R et al (2010) Net contribution of spillover from a marine reserve to fishery catches. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 400:233-243 (on lobsters in the Mediterranean); and Kerwath SE et al (2013) Marine protected area improves yield without disadvantaging fishers. Nature Communications 4:2347. You should also acknowledge the possibility of larval (as opposed to adult) export from reserves to fished areas, for example: Harrison HB et al (2012) Larval export from marine reserves and the recruitment benefit for fish and fisheries. Current Biology 22:1023-1028. Lines 93-97. Note major point 5 above. Lines 116-117. Indicate here the year when the MPAs were implemented (2000). Materials and Methods. Line 198. “….and spillover to fishing grounds may occur ([26]” Lines 208, 209. Tourist or tourism (not touristic). Lines 273-274. Why calculate effort by dividing catch by catch-per-unit-effort (CPUE)? Surely you measured catch and effort directly to calculate CPUE? Line 302. ..affected by the potential drivers (add potential). Lines 310-312. You make it clear that the re-zoning was confounded by the sea-cucumber over-exploitation phase (see also Table 3). Thus, when you talk of changes to effort associated with the zoning (e.g. Lines: 600-605, 989-990, 1035-1036) you must acknowledge this confounding. At lines 1096-1099 you DO acknowledge the confounding, and should in other places in the manuscript. Lines 367, 401, 407. Insert “the” before: normality assumption, input field, z score. Results. Line 505. (Fig. 2a, b, c) should read (Fig. 2d, e, f). Line 520. (Fig. 2d, e, f) should read (Fig. 2a, b, c). Line 601. Acknowledge confounding of zoning and sea-cucumber over-exploitation phase. Line 644. ..the eastern part, ..the southeastern part (insert the). Line 678. Fishers (add s). Line 702. These types of fishers.. Line 718. Suggest (not suggests). Line 888. Western side of Discussion. Lines 952-954. Note comment re Fletcher et al (2015) and Hughes et al (2016) above. Lines1174-1176. Good point. The lobster recovery may not be related to the implementation of the MPAs. Lines 1188-1190 and 1218-1220. When suggesting a re-evaluation of the MPA zoning, you must be clear about why the MPAs were established: conservation, fisheries management, or both. Lines 1194. The TURFS suggestion outside the MPAs is a good one. Lines 1199-1201. Alcala and Russ (2006) could be cited here also. Lines 1224-1227. Why would an MPA network placed in a biased manner help the fishery if it was set up to avoid the fishery? Line 1238. ..replicates. Line 1241. Thirdly (not Fourthly). Lines 1249-1262. In addition to the Kay example in the Channel Islands, which is a good one, you could also mention the Goni et al (2010) lobster example from the Mediterranean. Line 1264. Ref. 70 in support of the idea of spillover is inadequate. See references to cite on spillover suggested above. Line 1291. To support (not the support). Fig. 2. What do the dark grey and light grey shaded areas of time represent? El Nino/La Nina? Specify in caption. Figs. 3 and 4. What are the units here? Effort (diver hours)? Specify in caption. Figs. 3-6. I find it difficult to differentiate Fig. 3 from 4, or Fig. 5 from Fig. 6, simply by eye. Figures 7-10. Specify acronyms for all of the predictor variables in the caption of Fig. 7, then refer to this in the captions of Figs. 8-10. Reader must be reminded what these variables are in the caption. Fig. 7. I agree, NearNTZ has no pattern. Table 1. Caption. Sampling method (not smapling). Table 3. Caption Line 2: occurring (not occurred). Table 4. Perhaps call the variables “Predictor Variables” in the caption? Reviewer #2: General comments: In this study, the authors aim to investigate the effects of management, biophysical data and socioeconomic factors on the distribution of fishing effort. They use a variety of analytical tools to detect global and local drivers, from the Global Financial Crisis and climatic drivers to the distribution of MPAs. Given the need to better understand drivers of social and ecological dynamics, it will be good to see this paper published. There are two primary concerns that need to be addressed, however. The first (and most serious) is that there is no mention of overfishing as a possible driver. This may be hard to measure, but in any boom-and-bust dynamic this must be one of the factors investigated. By reading this manuscript, the reader has no idea what kind of fishing effort the spiny lobster and sea cucumber populations in this area can sustainably endure. Ideally, the authors need to weave this consideration into the whole manuscript, and if there is no way of adding actual data on this, they need to make a substantial effort to include information from other studies. The second is that as it stands, this paper is extremely long and gets way too bogged down in the detail. This whole manuscript needs to be clearly structured and significantly tightened. The introduction neglects to adequately develop the relevant background, and can be much improved with examples and references. The most important points are often lost in the detail, and there is a lot of unnecessary repetition, both between sections and within sections. The authors need to go through the manuscript carefully and re-develop it around the main points they are trying to make. Further detailed comments are listed below. Introduction L55: MPAs more than just a topic of discussion - it would be a stronger opening for your introduction to acknowledge their widespread and increasing implementation. L65: Change "spatial management and integrated management" to "spatial and integrated management". You could also briefly mention where Marine Spatial Planning (a term widely used in the Western Pacific) comes in. L68-69: Please provide one or two examples of this, with references. L69-72: Please provide one or two examples of this, with references. L78-79: Who is discussing this? Please provide references. A discussion implies some weighing up of pros and cons; please give examples. L80: Remove the comma after “grounds”. L88: Change "on" to "for". L94: Change the phrase to "...no study has yet examined..." L96: Remove the "s" from "markets". L102: Change "on" to "to". L104: Recommendations cannot be mislead. Perhaps you mean something like "misleading management agencies into making inadequate decisions"? L110: Remove the comma after “drivers”. L111: Remove the comma after “MPA”. L113: The Introduction needs to make a case for why this is a good place for this study. You can use some of the information already in the Methods section, to avoid repetition. I have indicated below with section would fit better here than in the Methods. L120: The management implications of what / who? L124: A clearer way to frame the goals of this study, which then can also streamline the structure of the paper, is to pose a list of questions. Then the methods, results and discussion sections can be structured accordingly. Materials & Methods L133: Who created this division? Please provide a reference. L141: Change "in" to "across". L143: Do you mean that it's officially protected as National Parks, or it's just uninhabited? L178-232: All this could go in the Introduction. It also needs tightening and streamlining; as it is, it's much too long. L189: Briefly say what this means for environmental conditions around Galapagos. L198: Change "spillover" to "spill over". In this context, it's being used as a verb. L243: This is incorrect - it needs to be expressed as "data points" or "records". L245: Change "daily-basis" to "daily basis". L286: This is rather hard to follow. It would be much improved by a table of what data were collected when, and with what method. A little of that is contained within Table 1, but this could be moved to an expanded data collection table. L316: Does this mean you can't tell which one - stocks collapse or global financial crisis - actually drove the profitability of fishing? L335: What statistic was used, and what software was used? L379: These are all examples of goals of your analysis that could be framed as questions and added to the end of the Introduction. L409: Explain the difference between a hotspot and a cold spot. L417: Should this be diver hours per unit area? L452: change "being" to "are". Results L524: I don't see these illustrated in the figure. One way to show this in the figure itself would be to add arrows for when these events occurred. L527: The Results section is not the place to try and find reasons for the results - move all these kinds of inferences to the Discussion section. The Results section is simply for describing results. L621: These key patterns would be more useful if they were moved to the beginning of each section. The authors could begin with the key patterns and the describe some of the detail. L625: The best place for this next paragraph would be in the Discussion, where it could then be followed by more detailed discussion about these patterns and their reasons and implications. L684: The best place for this next paragraph would be in the Discussion, where it could then be followed by more detailed discussion about these patterns and their reasons and implications. L718-720: This is a very awkward way to start - clearly state your main result. This whole following section is way too long. Please tighten it and clearly highlight the key results that you will discuss in the Discussion sections. Discussion L952: To make the reader want to read more, highlight your most important and interesting results at the beginning of the Discussion. You only need one sentence to "sell" the novelty of the methods used. L976-985: This is what you could start the Discussion with. L989-997: There's no need to re-iterate detailed results. Stick to discussing them in the context of current knowledge, and the implications of your findings. L999: Insert "The" at the start of this sentence. L1017-1029: This seems out of place here. Stick to discussing your results. L1028: This has already been said. This repetition is not helpful and makes the Discussion hard to read. L1099: This is a little confusing - the discussion about fishing the line further above suggests that marine zoning was implemented to not affect areas preferred for fishing - but here there's a suggestion that zoning did have a significant effect on fisheries. L1130: This is good - please develop this further by setting it in context of other studies that may have found similar patterns, and then discuss the implications for management. Summary, Implications, Conclusions – this back end is far too long, please condense. Tables and Figures Table 2: This table really belongs with the paragraphs describing the different factors that have influenced these fisheries. Figure 2: Throughout the caption, please change "relation" to "relationship". Could you add p-values to the regression figures? Figure 4 caption: Change "three-time" to "three time". Figures 8-10: There’s no reason to use the abbreviations in the axis titles. Please write them out in full. ********** 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. If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public. Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? 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 to be viewed.] 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 us at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.
|
| Revision 1 |
|
PONE-D-19-26580R1 Human and climatic drivers affect spatial fishing patterns in a multiple-use marine protected area: the Galapagos Marine Reserve PLOS ONE Dear Dr. Castrejón, Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’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. The manuscript is much improved so I thank the authors for their efforts and Reviewer 2 is satisfied that all the suggestions have been address (Reviewer 1 was not available). That said, Reviewer 2 has noted that the Discussion still requires some work and I agree. The authors should emphasis the important findings first, rather than leading with the 'fishing the line' story. I still think the Discussion could be trimmed down to be more concise as well so I encourage the authors to make their revisions with that in mind. I have some minor editorial corrections as well. That said, I think these changes can be made relatively quickly and that a more focused and concise Discussion will improve the paper. Once these changes have been made the paper can be accepted. I look forward to seeing the final version of this interesting and timely paper in the near future. We would appreciate receiving your revised manuscript by Feb 14 2020 11:59PM. When you are ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file. If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. To enhance the reproducibility of your results, we recommend that if applicable you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io, where a protocol can be assigned its own identifier (DOI) such that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:
Please note while forming your response, if your article is accepted, you may have the opportunity to make the peer review history publicly available. The record will include editor decision letters (with reviews) and your responses to reviewer comments. If eligible, we will contact you to opt in or out. We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript. Kind regards, Heather M. Patterson, Ph.D. Academic Editor PLOS ONE [Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.] Reviewers' comments: 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. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions? The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented. Reviewer #2: Partly ********** 3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #2: Yes ********** 4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available? The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). 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 ONE 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: I commend the authors for the considerable effort they have put into their revisions. Points where they opted not to make changes were adequately explained. However, the Discussion is still a bit of a mess. Somehow now the discussion starts with the "fishing the line" story, which is not really one of the main points this paper is making. The following paragraphs then jump around various topics, and the main points are mostly still lost in the detail. My suggestion is: 1) Present all the broad topics and key points in the opening paragraph. 2) Before writing the text, list all the key points and sub-points in order of importance (or sequentially as they appear in the results section. 3) Organize the text accordingly. The content is all there, it just needs to be organized and edited for flow. It's also still very long. Consider what sentences you could lose without affecting the content or the message. ********** 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. If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public. Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy. 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 to be viewed.] 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 us at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.
|
| Revision 2 |
|
Human and climatic drivers affect spatial fishing patterns in a multiple-use marine protected area: the Galapagos Marine Reserve PONE-D-19-26580R2 Dear Dr. Castrejón, We are pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it complies with all outstanding technical requirements. Within one week, you will receive an e-mail containing information on the amendments required prior to publication. When all required modifications have been addressed, you will receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will proceed to our production department and be scheduled for publication. Shortly after the formal acceptance letter is sent, an invoice for payment will follow. To ensure an efficient production and billing process, please log into Editorial Manager at https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the "Update My Information" link at the top of the page, and update your user information. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org. If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to enable them to help maximize its impact. If they will be preparing press materials for this manuscript, you must inform our press team as soon as possible and 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 onepress@plos.org. With kind regards, Heather M. Patterson, Ph.D. Academic Editor PLOS ONE Additional Editor Comments (optional): Reviewers' comments: |
| Formally Accepted |
|
PONE-D-19-26580R2 Human and climatic drivers affect spatial fishing patterns in a multiple-use marine protected area: the Galapagos Marine Reserve Dear Dr. Castrejón: I am pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department. If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper at this point, to enable them to help maximize its impact. If they will be preparing press materials for this manuscript, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org. For any other questions or concerns, please email plosone@plos.org. Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE. With kind regards, PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff on behalf of Dr. Heather M. Patterson Academic Editor PLOS ONE |
Open letter on the publication of peer review reports
PLOS recognizes the benefits of transparency in the peer review process. Therefore, we enable the publication of all of the content of peer review and author responses alongside final, published articles. Reviewers remain anonymous, unless they choose to reveal their names.
We encourage other journals to join us in this initiative. We hope that our action inspires the community, including researchers, research funders, and research institutions, to recognize the benefits of published peer review reports for all parts of the research system.
Learn more at ASAPbio .