The impact of liquefaction disaster on farming systems at agriculture land based on technical and psychosocial perspectives

Muhammad Basir-Cyio; Mahfudz; Isrun; Zeffitni

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0245591

Peer Review History

Original SubmissionJanuary 21, 2020
26 May 2020 Decision Letter - Simon Clegg, Editor PONE-D-20-00593 The Impact of Liquefaction Disaster on Farming Systems at Agriculture Land Based on Technical and Psychosocial Perspectives PLOS ONE Dear Dr. Muhammed Basir-Cyio 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. Many thanks for submitting your manuscript to PLOS One The manuscript was reviewed by experts in the field and they have suggested that some modifications be made prior to acceptance. If you could write a response to reviewers that will aid to expedite the review when resubmitted I wish you all the best with your revisions Hope you are keeping safe and well in these difficult times Please submit your revised manuscript by Jul 10 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, Simon Clegg, PhD 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. PLOS requires an ORCID iD for the corresponding author in Editorial Manager on papers submitted after December 6th, 2016. Please ensure that you have an ORCID iD and that it is validated in Editorial Manager. To do this, go to ‘Update my Information’ (in the upper left-hand corner of the main menu), and click on the Fetch/Validate link next to the ORCID field. This will take you to the ORCID site and allow you to create a new iD or authenticate a pre-existing iD in Editorial Manager. Please see the following video for instructions on linking an ORCID iD to your Editorial Manager account: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_xcclfuvtxQ 3. We note that Figures 1 and 2 in your submission contain map 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 (a) present written permission from the copyright holder to publish these figures specifically under the CC BY 4.0 license, or (b) remove the figures from your submission: a. You may seek permission from the original copyright holder of Figures 1 and 2 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].” b. 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/ 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 #2: Partly Reviewer #3: Partly ******** 2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #2: No Reviewer #3: 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 #2: Yes Reviewer #3: No ****** 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 #2: Yes Reviewer #3: 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 #2: The objective of the study is very broad not clearly elaborated. It doesnot specify what the study is going to investigate. The methodology is weak. The perception survey is carried out only in one site. Two sites would be better for comparison as well as for better concrete results. The experimental methods does not indicate where and why the experiments were conducted. Some references is missing. For instance, Joshi et al 2015 is missing. There are many typos in the paper Implications of research findings and limitation of the studies are not clearly outlined. Reviewer #3: This paper is quite interesting. It takes a multi-disciplinary approach towards understanding how farmer attitudes towards continued cultivation of liquefaction-affected rural fields are shaped by likely presence of the dead, embedded in areas of landsliding and liquefaction, more than the actual soil physical-chemical properties of the soil. IN a general sense, the farmers are willing to continue to farm in these areas, and unwilling to move elsewhere, but unwilling to consume their own products grown in these fields. The authors attribute the latter to suggest that farmers are worried about 'root uptake' of the deceased into plants, and go on to make the unfortunate mistake of stating that this reflects the "low-level knowledge" of the farmers. The latter statement is arrogant and should be removed; there are many types of knowledge, including experience, and it is not impossible that degrading corpses also contribute locally to changes in soil chemistry. I understand why farmers might not want to consume crops grown amongst the dead for a variety of reasons, and cannot say I would be different! That said, I think the paper is really interesting and I want to encourage the authors. I have made a series of notes on the PDF that I hope will help them revise this work. I don't know why the transcripts can not be made available with all identifying information removed, because these transcripts are the actual data to support what the authors are proposing here. ****** 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 #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. Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Reviewer Attachment.pdf https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0245591.r001
Revision 1
30 Sep 2020 Author Response 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 #2: Partly Reviewer #3: Partly We have reviewed and corrected the suggestions and corrections from the Review Team. Thank you for all the help and advice. ________________________________________ 2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #2: No Reviewer #3: Yes We have read and reviewed the Statistical Analysis in the article. From the results of the re-examination, it was found that the Statistical Analysis that we wrote was appropriate. Re-examination has been done to the maximum. ________________________________________ 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 #2: Yes Reviewer #3: No Thank you for the advice from the Reviewer Team. In our opinion, the data underlying the findings are contained and written in the manuscript as a whole, without exception.________________________________________ 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 #2: Yes Reviewer #3: Yes The language used in the manuscript is standard English which is easy to understand and unambiguous. Thank you for the review.________________________________________ 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 #2: The objective of the study is very broad not clearly elaborated. It doesnot specify what the study is going to investigate. The methodology is weak. The perception survey is carried out only in one site. Two sites would be better for comparison as well as for better concrete results. The experimental methods does not indicate where and why the experiments were conducted. Some references is missing. For instance, Joshi et al 2015 is missing. There are many typos in the paper Implications of research findings and limitation of the studies are not clearly outlined. Reviewer #3: This paper is quite interesting. It takes a multi-disciplinary approach towards understanding how farmer attitudes towards continued cultivation of liquefaction-affected rural fields are shaped by likely presence of the dead, embedded in areas of landsliding and liquefaction, more than the actual soil physical-chemical properties of the soil. IN a general sense, the farmers are willing to continue to farm in these areas, and unwilling to move elsewhere, but unwilling to consume their own products grown in these fields. The authors attribute the latter to suggest that farmers are worried about 'root uptake' of the deceased into plants, and go on to make the unfortunate mistake of stating that this reflects the "low-level knowledge" of the farmers. The latter statement is arrogant and should be removed; there are many types of knowledge, including experience, and it is not impossible that degrading corpses also contribute locally to changes in soil chemistry. I understand why farmers might not want to consume crops grown amongst the dead for a variety of reasons, and cannot say I would be different! That said, I think the paper is really interesting and I want to encourage the authors. I have made a series of notes on the PDF that I hope will help them revise this work. I don't know why the transcripts can not be made available with all identifying information removed, because these transcripts are the actual data to support what the authors are proposing here. We have written down the suggestions and corrections from the Review Team in the manuscript. We are very grateful for the help, direction, and correction from the Review Team in helping to refine the manuscript which aims to perfect the manuscript we sent.________________________________________ 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 #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. Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Reviewers Coment (1).docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0245591.r002
25 Nov 2020 Decision Letter - Simon Clegg, Editor PONE-D-20-00593R1 The Impact of Liquefaction Disaster on Farming Systems at Agriculture Land Based on Technical and Psychosocial Perspectives PLOS ONE Dear Dr. Basir-Cyio 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. ============================== Many thanks for resubmitting your manuscript to PLOS One Although one reviewer is happy, one is unhappy with the way in which you have handled their comments Can you please check over the comments of the reviewer from the previous submission, and check that you include each of their comments If you could write a response to reviewers, that will expedite the review when the manuscript is resubmitted I wish you the best of luck with your revisions Thanks Simon ============================== Please submit your revised manuscript by Jan 09 2021 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, Simon Clegg, PhD Academic Editor PLOS ONE 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: (No Response) Reviewer #3: (No Response) ******** 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: Yes Reviewer #3: Partly ****** 3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #2: Yes Reviewer #3: 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 Reviewer #3: 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 Reviewer #3: No ****** 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 suggest to edit few minor language errors Reviewer #3: Sadly, I cannot recommend publication. The paper is plagued with grammatical errors, beginning with the title, and persisting throughout. The research method failed to provide a relevant pre-earthquake baseline with which to evaluate the results - for example, what % of farmers consumed the agricultural products from their lands prior to the earthquakes and thus how have the earthquakes changed this? The authors still adhere to the statement that "This attitude reflects the low-level knowledge of the farmers" and thus the authors' perspective of what constitutes 'knowledge' remain unchanged despite my prior recommendations. The paper floats between an agricultural piece on fertilizer and a social science piece on cultural attitudes but ultimately neither section fulfills its potential nor are clear lines drawn to connect these attributes. The authors should consider submitting this work to a lower tier journal. I really wanted to be able to support publication of this work because it has some interesting components, but ultimately I cannot. ****** 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 Reviewer #3: 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. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0245591.r003
Revision 2
21 Dec 2020 Author Response 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 suggest to edit few minor language errors Reesponse to reviewer #2: Author : Thank you for reviewer 2. We have corrected some minor errors in the manuscript by re-reading it carefully and details according this suggestion. Reviewer #3: Sadly, I cannot recommend publication. The paper is plagued with grammatical errors, beginning with the title, and persisting throughout. The research method failed to provide a relevant pre-earthquake baseline with which to evaluate the results - for example, what % of farmers consumed the agricultural products from their lands prior to the earthquakes and thus how have the earthquakes changed this? The authors still adhere to the statement that "This attitude reflects the low-level knowledge of the farmers" and thus the authors' perspective of what constitutes 'knowledge' remain unchanged despite my prior recommendations. The paper floats between an agricultural piece on fertilizer and a social science piece on cultural attitudes but ultimately neither section fulfills its potential nor are clear lines drawn to connect these attributes. The authors should consider submitting this work to a lower tier journal. I really wanted to be able to support publication of this work because it has some interesting components, but ultimately I cannot. Response to reviewer #3: Author: (A) In principle, the method we use has provided steps that can answer problems found in the field, especially related to the comparison or comparison of how many farmers consume their agricultural products before and after the earthquake and liquefaction. Before the disaster 100% of the farmers consumed their agricultural products and after the disaster no one wanted to consume their agricultural products because they believed that the land where they were farming there were still many corpses. Therefore they assumed that the remains of the corpses had been absorbed by plants. So that they are considered to have polluted the land and agricultural products, which is why they are reluctant to consume their agricultural products, especially to provide family needs. Almost all of them sell their agricultural products to traditional markets around the areas affected by the earthquake and liquefaction. (B) It can be reiterated that all the farmers affected by the earthquake and liquefaction did not complete their education in elementary school. Some even received primary school education but also dropped out or did not graduate, so their insights and knowledge were still very limited. Therefore, even though they are given guidance and counseling, it is difficult to accept it, especially with regard to things that are mystical or superstitious, especially those related to corpses in the ground due to the disaster. Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Reviewers.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0245591.r004
5 Jan 2021 Decision Letter - Simon Clegg, Editor The Impact of Liquefaction Disaster on Farming Systems at Agriculture Land Based on Technical and Psychosocial Perspectives PONE-D-20-00593R2 Dear Dr. Basir-Cyio, 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, Simon Clegg, PhD Academic Editor PLOS ONE Additional Editor Comments: Many thanks for resubmitting your manuscript to PLOS One As you have addressed all the comments and the manuscript reads well, I have recommended it for publication You should hear from the Editorial Office shortly. It was a pleasure working with you and I wish you the best of luck for your future research Hope you are keeping safe and well in these difficult times Thanks Simon https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0245591.r005
Formally Accepted
8 Jan 2021 Acceptance Letter - Simon Clegg, Editor PONE-D-20-00593R2 The Impact of Liquefaction Disaster on Farming Systems at Agriculture Land Based on Technical and Psychosocial Perspectives Dear Dr. Basir-Cyio: 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. Simon Clegg Academic Editor PLOS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0245591.r006

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 .