Peer Review History

Original SubmissionSeptember 14, 2020

Attachments
Attachment
Submitted filename: Revise Letter.doc
Decision Letter - Vassilis G. Aschonitis, Editor

PONE-D-20-27049

Quality suitability regionalization analysis of Angelica sinensis in Gansu , China

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. XU,

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.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Dec 05 2020 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 plosone@plos.org. When you're 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.

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). 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'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Vassilis G. Aschonitis

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

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. Thank you for stating the following in your Competing Interests section: 

"5172".

Please complete your Competing Interests on the online submission form to state any Competing Interests. If you have no competing interests, please state "The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.", as detailed online in our guide for authors at http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submit-now

This information should be included in your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf.

Please know it is PLOS ONE policy for corresponding authors to declare, on behalf of all authors, all potential competing interests for the purposes of transparency. PLOS defines a competing interest as anything that interferes with, or could reasonably be perceived as interfering with, the full and objective presentation, peer review, editorial decision-making, or publication of research or non-research articles submitted to one of the journals. Competing interests can be financial or non-financial, professional, or personal. Competing interests can arise in relationship to an organization or another person. Please follow this link to our website for more details on competing interests: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/competing-interests

3. Please note that in order to use the direct billing option the corresponding author must be affiliated with the chosen institute. Please either amend your manuscript to change the affiliation or corresponding author, or email us at plosone@plos.org with a request to remove this option.

4.We note that [Figure(s) 2, 4, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, and 15] in your submission contain [map/satellite] images which may be copyrighted. All PLOS content is published under the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY 4.0), which means that the manuscript, images, and Supporting Information files will be freely available online, and any third party is permitted to access, download, copy, distribute, and use these materials in any way, even commercially, with proper attribution. For these reasons, we cannot publish previously copyrighted maps or satellite images created using proprietary data, such as Google software (Google Maps, Street View, and Earth). For more information, see our copyright guidelines: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/licenses-and-copyright.

We require you to either (1) present written permission from the copyright holder to publish these figures specifically under the CC BY 4.0 license, or (2) remove the figures from your submission:

1.    You may seek permission from the original copyright holder of Figure(s) [2, 4, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, and 15] to publish the content specifically under the CC BY 4.0 license. 

We recommend that you contact the original copyright holder with the Content Permission Form (http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=7c09/content-permission-form.pdf) and the following text:

“I request permission for the open-access journal PLOS ONE to publish XXX under the Creative Commons Attribution License (CCAL) CC BY 4.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). Please be aware that this license allows unrestricted use and distribution, even commercially, by third parties. Please reply and provide explicit written permission to publish XXX under a CC BY license and complete the attached form.”

Please upload the completed Content Permission Form or other proof of granted permissions as an "Other" file with your submission.

In the figure caption of the copyrighted figure, please include the following text: “Reprinted from [ref] under a CC BY license, with permission from [name of publisher], original copyright [original copyright year].”

2.    If you are unable to obtain permission from the original copyright holder to publish these figures under the CC BY 4.0 license or if the copyright holder’s requirements are incompatible with the CC BY 4.0 license, please either i) remove the figure or ii) supply a replacement figure that complies with the CC BY 4.0 license. Please check copyright information on all replacement figures and update the figure caption with source information. If applicable, please specify in the figure caption text when a figure is similar but not identical to the original image and is therefore for illustrative purposes only.

The following resources for replacing copyrighted map figures may be helpful:

USGS National Map Viewer (public domain): http://viewer.nationalmap.gov/viewer/

The Gateway to Astronaut Photography of Earth (public domain): http://eol.jsc.nasa.gov/sseop/clickmap/

Maps at the CIA (public domain): https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/index.html and https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/cia-maps-publications/index.html

NASA Earth Observatory (public domain): http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/

Landsat: http://landsat.visibleearth.nasa.gov/

USGS EROS (Earth Resources Observatory and Science (EROS) Center) (public domain): http://eros.usgs.gov/#

Natural Earth (public domain): http://www.naturalearthdata.com/

5. Thank you for stating the following in the Funding Section of your manuscript:

"This work was supported by the Youth Fund of the Gansu University of Chinese Medicine (No. ZQ2015-8), the Natural science foundation of Gansu Provinc(No.1610RJZA066), and China national natural science foundation regional science foundation project (No. 81360615)."

We note that you have provided funding information that is not currently declared in your Funding Statement. However, funding information should not appear in the Acknowledgments section or other areas of your manuscript. We will only publish funding information present in the Funding Statement section of the online submission form.

Please remove any funding-related text from the manuscript and let us know how you would like to update your Funding Statement. Currently, your Funding Statement reads as follows:

 "The author(s) received no specific funding for this work."

Please include your amended statements within your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf.

6. Please amend the manuscript submission data (via Edit Submission) to include authors Tiantian Zhu, Tingting Shi, Juan Chen, Ling Jin.

7. Please amend your list of authors on the manuscript to ensure that each author is linked to an affiliation. Authors’ affiliations should reflect the institution where the work was done (if authors moved subsequently, you can also list the new affiliation stating “current affiliation:….” as necessary).

[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

**********

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

Reviewer #1: 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

**********

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

**********

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 manuscript is good and publishable. Few grammatical errors within the manuscript can be corrected including the addressing the uploaded comments. I recommend it for publication.

Abstract is in order.

Introduction

In lines 57 – 59, authors should explain how expansion of cultivation of A. Sinensis has deteriorated its yield, since it is expected that when something is expanded, it should be increased in quantity. Otherwise, since focus on this research is on ‘quality’, the yield aspect can be omitted.

Materials and Methods

Lines 93 – 94: What is the difference between meteorological data and comprehensive meteorological data used as ecological factors. I think authors could just use one of these and explain further in the methods the kind of meteorological data used in the study.

Results

Presentation of results in lines 214 – 246 is cumbersome and unclear. Authors should simply present the relationships and their significance coherently, which can be presented in a tabular form to show their predictability.

Discussion

Lines 260 – 295: Authors should back their findings with literature to consolidate generated knowledge from this research. Current discussion is more of a commentary on the results other than backing the results with scientific facts on why such findings were obtained and their implications.

Conclusion is in order.

**********

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

[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.

Attachments
Attachment
Submitted filename: Review comments - Quality suitability regionalization analysis of Angelica sinensis in Gansu.docx
Revision 1

PONE-D-20-27049 Response to Reviewers

18-Nov-2020

Dear Editors and Reviewers:

Thank you for your comments concerning our manuscript entitled “Quality suitability regionalization analysis of Angelica sinensis in Gansu ,China”(ID:PONE-D-20-27049). Those comments are all valuable and very helpful for revising and improving our paper, as well as the important guiding significance to our researches. We have studied comments carefully and have made correction which we hope meet with approval. Revised portion are marked in red in the paper. The corrections in the paper and the responds to the reviewer’s comments are as flowing:

Journal Requirements:

1.Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming.

Response: Done. Thank you for your careful review. The manuscript has been corrected as PLOS ONE's style requirements, revised portion were marked in red.

2.Please complete your Competing Interests on the online submission form to state any Competing Interests. If you have no competing interests, please state "The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.", This information should be included in your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf.

Response: Done. Thank you for your careful review. We have no competing interests. The statement "The authors have declared that no competing interests exist."has been added to the cover letter.

3.Please note that in order to use the direct billing option the corresponding author must be affiliated with the chosen institute. Please either amend your manuscript to change the affiliation or corresponding author, or email us at plosone@plos.org with a request to remove this option.

Response: Done. Thank you for your careful review. The manuscript has been amended,

the corresponding author was affiliated with the chosen institute,now.

4.We note that [Figure(s) 2, 4, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, and 15] in your submission contain [map/satellite] images which may be copyrighted.We require you to either (1) present written permission from the copyright holder to publish these figures specifically under the CC BY 4.0 license, or (2) remove the figures from your submission.

Response: Done. Thank you for your careful review. Figure(s) 2, 4, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, and 15 are all the standard maps of Gansu Province, now. Map review number: Gan S(2017)64. Download address: Department of natural resources of Gansu Province (http://zrzy.gansu.gov.cn/).The standard map of Gansu province can be downloaded for free, it does not need to be approved.

5.We note that you have provided funding information that is not currently declared in your Funding Statement.Please remove any funding-related text from the manuscript and let us know how you would like to update your Funding Statement. Please include your amended statements within your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf.

Response: Done. Thank you for your careful review. The funding-related text from the manuscript has been removed. Funding Statements were added to the cover letter.

6. Please amend the manuscript submission data (via Edit Submission) to include authors Tiantian Zhu, Tingting Shi, Juan Chen, Ling Jin.

Response: Done. Thank you for your careful review. The manuscript submission data has been amended , including authors Tiantian Zhu, Tingting Shi, Juan Chen, Ling Jin.

7. Please amend your list of authors on the manuscript to ensure that each author is linked to an affiliation.

Response: Done. Thank you for your careful review. The list of authors on the manuscript has been amended,revised portion were marked in red.

8.While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool,  PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements.

Response: Done. Thank you for your careful review. The figure files have been uploaded to PACE. All the figures meet PLOS requirements, now.

Reviewer(s)' Comments to Author:

1.In lines 57 – 59, authors should explain how expansion of cultivation of A. Sinensis has deteriorated its yield, since it is expected that when something is expanded, it should be increased in quantity. Otherwise, since focus on this research is on ‘quality’, the yield aspect can be omitted.

Response: Done. Thank you for your careful review.We are so sorry about the wrong statement.The sentence has been corrected as“… which eventually has deteriorated the quality of A. sinensis”, Please see the red part in Line 57-58 of Page 3.

2.Materials and Methods

Lines 93 – 94: What is the difference between meteorological data and comprehensive meteorological data used as ecological factors. I think authors could just use one of these and explain further in the methods the kind of meteorological data used in the study.

Response: Done. Thank you for your careful review.We are so sorry about the wrong statement.We've deleted “comprehensive meteorological data”.Please see the red part in Line 91-92 of Page 5.

3.Results

Presentation of results in lines 214 – 246 is cumbersome and unclear. Authors should simply present the relationships and their significance coherently, which can be presented in a tabular form to show their predictability.

Response: Done. Thank you for your careful review. Presentation of results in lines 214 – 246 have been presented in a tabular form to show their predictability.Please see the red part in Line 211-218 of Page12.

4.Discussion

Lines 260 – 295: Authors should back their findings with literature to consolidate generated knowledge from this research. Current discussion is more of a commentary on the results other than backing the results with scientific facts on why such findings were obtained and their implications.

Response: Done. Thank you for your careful review. Literature has been added to support our findings to consolidate the knowledge derived from this study. Please see the red part in Line 239-267 of Page15.

Special thanks to Editors and Reviewers for these good comments.

We appreciate for Editors and Reviewers’ warm work earnestly, and hope that the correction will meet with approval.

Once again, thank you very much for your comments and suggestions.

Attachments
Attachment
Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.doc
Decision Letter - Vassilis G. Aschonitis, Editor

Quality suitability regionalization analysis of Angelica sinensis in Gansu , China

PONE-D-20-27049R1

Dear Dr. Jin,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. 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 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 onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Vassilis G. Aschonitis

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Formally Accepted
Acceptance Letter - Vassilis G. Aschonitis, Editor

PONE-D-20-27049R1

Quality suitability regionalization analysis of Angelica sinensis in Gansu, China

Dear Dr. Jin:

I'm 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 let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, 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.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at plosone@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. Vassilis G. Aschonitis

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 .