A global database of plant services for humankind

PONE-D-21-14868

Dear Dr. Molina,

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,

Narel Y. Paniagua-Zambrana, M.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

We want to mention to the authors that the decision that has been made in relation to this manuscript aims to highlight the contribution that the information and analysis carried out could generate to current ethnobotanical science. We believe that in the future this information could generate interesting analyzes, discussions and conclusions that could benefit the development of science and the making of decisions related to the conservation of species and the knowledge and use associated with them.

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: N/A

**********

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: Over the last months, this reviewer has already seen various editions of this manuscript, and the authors have always carefully incorporated all comments. This is an interesting manuscript indeed that will especially foment more discussion sin the discipline. From this perspective it does serve a wide audience.

It is time to getting this published!

Reviewer #2: This manuscript is an atypical contribution. It is about organising data in a better way for their use and does not generate new knowledge. I acknowledge that the work done is very important to us ethnobotanists, but I doubt PlosONE or any other such periodical is a suitable place for it unless there is a special section about databases.

You opted to submit your work to an Open Access journal, which probably means that you envisage spending a certain sum for its publication. Why not redirect this finances to creating a special webpage for your database? As an example, please have a look on clonal plant growth database: https://clopla.butbn.cas.cz/

You might also ask advice to national or international societies of ethnobotany how to make your database accessible and useful.

**********

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