Gender-based market constraints to informal fish retailing: Evidence from analysis of variance and linear regression

Seamus Murphy; Diksha Arora; Froukje Kruijssen; Cynthia McDougall; Paula Kantor

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0229286

Peer Review History

Original SubmissionJuly 6, 2019
23 Sep 2019 Decision Letter - Baogui Xin, Editor PONE-D-19-18427 Gender-based market constraints to informal fish retailing; Evidence from analysis of variance and linear regression PLOS ONE Dear Dr Murphy, 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. We recommend that it should be revised taking into account the changes requested by the reviewers. Since the requested changes includes Minor Revision, the revised manuscript will undergo the next round of review by the same reviewers. We would appreciate receiving your revised manuscript by Nov 07 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: A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). This letter should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Response to Reviewers'. A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. This file should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'. An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. This file should be uploaded as separate file and labeled '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, Baogui Xin, Ph.D. Academic Editor PLOS ONE Journal Requirements: When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements. 1. 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. Please note that some authors are affiliated with WorldFish, "an international, nonprofit research organization that harnesses the potential of fisheries and aquaculture to reduce hunger and poverty" (https://www.worldfishcenter.org/). As a non-profit research organization whose mission relates to the topic of the study, this should be discussed in the competing interests statement to ensure transparency. 3. Thank you for including your ethics statement on the online submission form: 'Field survey activities of the current study were authorized by the Egyptian Ministry of Social Solidarit' To help ensure that the wording of your manuscript is suitable for publication, would you please also add this statement at the beginning of the Methods section of your manuscript file. 4. Please include captions for your Supporting Information files at the end of your manuscript, and update any in-text citations to match accordingly. Please see our Supporting Information guidelines for more information: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/supporting-information. 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. 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: No 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: There is a need to bring out/separate the constraint result. The enterprise and household characteristics seem to be the constraints or the title could be rephrased as household and enterprise constraints of men and women retailers...... The regression is satisfactory, however, I suggest the author takes a second look at the ANOVA/t-test. The measurement of variables is faulty on some variable hence, I doubt some result of on test of difference. Reviewer #2: In this paper of “ Gender-based market constraints to informal fish retailing. I have several reservations about this paper and which are summarized as follows: 1. The paper has no driving research question. It is not clear to explain the contribution of this paper. In other words, the purpose of this research should be more clearly communicated in the introduction section. In introduction, please review the previous studies. What is the novelty for this article compared with existing studies? 2. I would like to see more discussion of the literature so that I can clearly identify the article relates to competing ideas. 3. authors had better to polish the manuscript. ****** 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: Yes: Olaosebikan Olamide Deborah 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. Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: PONE-D-19-18427_reviewer_DOlaosebikan.pdf Attachment Submitted filename: General comment.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0229286.r001
Revision 1
31 Jan 2020 Author Response Dear Reviewer I, Thank you very much for reviewing our manuscript (PONE-D-19-18247) entitled “Gender-based market constraints to informal fish retailing; Evidence from analysis of variance and linear regression” for consideration in Plos ONE. Your comments were excellent and have helped us to strengthen the manuscript. All comments were considered and changes were made accordingly, which we hope met your interpretations and recommendations. Please find below our revisions in response to your comments below. Kind Regards, Authors Comments of & responses to reviewer I: One general comment is that there is need to further explain the ‘constraint result’ and that this explanation needs to detail explicitly what is meant between household- and enterprise-based constraints. In particular, the reviewer suggests that such gender based constraints could separated from such results. - The authors appreciated these comments. On p. 3 and 4, l. 56-99, we considered your suggestion by adding information to the introduction and conceptual framework regarding the paper’s focus on and definition of ‘gender-based market constraints’ to accessing and utilizing markets and household resources. We add that, by adopting a ‘social relations approach’, the paper investigates the ‘economic significance’ of gendered power relations both ‘on the trading floor and within the household where financial resources, household labour and market exchange relations are negotiated…’. In response to the reviewer’s further comment regarding a potential separation between gender-based constraints and economic results, we feel that the purpose of the paper is bring attention to the intersections that exist between such enterprise outcomes and gender relations and norms, which are negotiated at both household and market levels. On p. 4, l. 92, in order to emphasize this point, we refer more explicitly to where and how such intersections were investigated, while citing additional literature to help inform the reader of these approaches and debates. Another comment is that further methodological discussion is needed of the study’s ANOVA and t-test analyses, which explains the parameters and measurements of variables assessed. - The authors appreciated these comments. On p. 7, l. 159-162, we addressed these concerns by adding details regarding how such variables were defined. We also explained more clearly which variables were analyzed using ANOVA methods and which variables were analyzed using t-tests. Dear Reviewer II, Thank you very much for reviewing our manuscript (PONE-D-19-18247) entitled “Gender-based market constraints to informal fish retailing; Evidence from analysis of variance and linear regression” for consideration in Plos ONE. Your comments were excellent and have helped us to strengthen the manuscript. All comments were considered and changes were made accordingly, which we hope met your interpretations and recommendations. Please find below our revisions in response to your comments below. Kind Regards, Authors Comments of & responses to reviewer II: Two general comments from reviewer II suggest that the paper requires a clearer explanation in the introduction of the paper’s contribution to current literature and of the novelty that the paper offers to such literature. - The authors appreciated this comment. On p. 3, l. 79, the authors introduce wider debates regarding the need for integrating gender research in economic development debates. In these discussions, on p. 3-4, l 86-98, the authors highlight how the current paper builds on these perspectives to contribute ‘novel gender perspectives in the new global development agenda’. In particular, the authors outline the study’s aim to provide results using the ‘relational approach’ to value chain research. In addition, the authors highlight how previous gender research in aquaculture retail sectors and value chains within region more generally have been limited, thereby highlighting the of the current study (l. 88). A specific comment by the reviewer suggests that the manuscript should be polished. - The authors appreciated this comment and have made substantial reviews and edits throughout the paper, restructuring per advice to position methodological discussions into the methods sections and correcting any content where minor mistakes were identified. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0229286.r002
4 Feb 2020 Decision Letter - Baogui Xin, Editor Gender-based market constraints to informal fish retailing: Evidence from analysis of variance and linear regression PONE-D-19-18427R1 Dear Dr. Murphy, 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, Baogui Xin, Ph.D. Academic Editor PLOS ONE Additional Editor Comments (optional): Reviewers' comments: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0229286.r003
Formally Accepted
24 Feb 2020 Acceptance Letter - Baogui Xin, Editor PONE-D-19-18427R1 Gender-based market constraints to informal fish retailing: Evidence from analysis of variance and linear regression Dear Dr. Murphy: 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 Prof. Baogui Xin Academic Editor PLOS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0229286.r004

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 .