Peer Review History

Original SubmissionApril 23, 2021
Decision Letter - László Vasa, Editor

PONE-D-21-12763

Analysis on Outsourcing Service Behavior of Rice Pest and Disease Control Based on Heckman Selection Model

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. LinPing Wang,

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 Jun 29 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. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

László VASA, 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. Please amend either the title on the online submission form (via Edit Submission) or the title in the manuscript so that they are identical.

4. We note that Figure 1 in your submission contains 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 (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 1 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/

[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: Partly

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: The paper deals with a basically peripherical issue in general, which, however, seems to be important in its field, indeed. However, the topic is relatively narrow; 1) having a potential interest for it from the readers' side, 2) can contribute to the existing knowledge to its field.

Basically, in this paper, the appropriate methodology is used to investigate the research questions. This methodology supports the results, and the conclusions are based on the results.

However, I have problems with the structure, which is quite unclear and partially with the contents.

- The introduction is not comprehensive; the research questions are not set appropriately, and the context is not explained.

- Chapters 2, 3, and 4 should be one chapter called "Material and Methods." However, in this case, the analysis part is too short.

I recommend writing more in the analysis chapter - inputs the authors have enough based in their research.

- I could not find any literature review in the paper; some resources are cited in the introduction and methodology chapters; however, the actual literature review is missing. Therefore, I recommend writing an analytical, critical, and comprehensive literature review chapter.

- there are no limitations of the research indicated.

Reviewer #2: The Manuscript "Analysis on Outsourcing Service Behavior of Rice Pest and Disease Control Based on

Heckman Selection Model" addresses an interesting, important topic along developing field crop (rice) production, specifically plant protection in an exciting socio-economic and "farmers behavior" context in Fujian Province, China.

The data collection in selected regions, counties and the number of farmers is appropriate for processing and coming to conclusions. The pest control/management and the potential outsourcing is very well introduced, discussed in the Manuscript. The conclusions are well phrased and imprortant for policy development purposes as well.

Three remarks:

- the category "pest" usually covers all harmfull organisms, incl. vuruses, fungi, animals, etc. Thus pests and diseases in the text may be corrected for arthropod pests and diseases.

- in addition to outsourcing of "pest control" service, a broader outsourcing of "pest management" is more appropriate approach.

- the Authors may add some sentence to the discussion/conclusion on how the outsourcing service may contribute to broader IPM implementation, sustainable production, farming development.

**********

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.]

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.

Revision 1

Dear László VASA, PhD and Reviewers:

Thank you for your letter and for the reviewers’comments concerning our manuscript entitled “Analysis on Outsourcing Service Behavior of Rice Pest and Disease Control Based on Heckman Selection Model-- A Case Study of Ten Counties in Fujian Province” (ID: PONE-D-21-12763). 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.

A list of changes and responses to reviews are as follows.

List of Action

(1) We have amended paper format according to the PLOS ONE style templates.

(2) The corresponding author used the ORCID id.

(3) We amended the title on the online submission form.

(4) We removed the survey area map and replaced it with a place name table.

Responds to the reviewer’s comments:

Reviewer #1:

Special thanks to you for your good comments.

(1)Response to comment: “The introduction is not comprehensive; the research questions are not set appropriately, and the context is not explained.”

Response: In the introduction, we tried to amend the language expression to make it more logical. And we also added the performance of China's agricultural outsourcing service into the literature review for explaining the context.

(2)Response to comment: “Chapters 2, 3, and 4 should be one chapter called "Material and Methods.”, and write more in the analysis chapter”

Response: The article merges the chapter 2,3,4 in the original manuscript into the new chapter 3 "Material and Methods". In the new manuscript, the chapter 4 “Model estimation results” presents the empirical results of the model and the results are analyzed.

(3)Response to comment: write an analytical, critical, and comprehensive literature review chapter.

Response: Thanks to the reviewers’ comment, we have added a literature review chapter, which contains the following parts: “2.1 Theoretical basis of agricultural outsourcing service”; “2.2 Study on the influencing factors of agricultural outsourcing services participation”;“2.3 The influence of agricultural outsourcing services on other production factors”;“2.4 Research gap”(Page3-Page5)

(4)Response to comment: - there are no limitations of the research indicated.

Response: In the ending of chapter 5 “Conclusion and suggestion” ,we put forward some problems worthy of further study.

Reviewer #2:

Special thanks to you for your good comments.

(1)Response to comment: “the category "pest" usually covers all harmful organisms, incl. viruses, fungi, animals, etc. Thus, pests and diseases in the text may be corrected for arthropod pests and diseases.”

Response: It is really true as Reviewer suggested that the definition of “pest”is too broad. So we have defined and annotated "pest" according to the reviewer’s suggestion in page 1.

(2)Response to comment: “in addition to outsourcing of "pest control" service, a broader outsourcing of "pest management" is more appropriate approach.”

Response: Thank you for your suggestions. According to some scholars,“pest control “maybe used more frequently (such as “Chen Pin, Zhong Funing, Sun Dingqiang. Farming Time Delay, Yield Loss, and Outsourcing Service Utilization under Labor Shortages: Taking Rice Pest Control as An Example [C], Chinese Conference on Agricultural Forestry Economics and Management (2017CAFEM)”and “Ying R Y,Xu B.Effects of Specialized Crop Pest and Disease Control Services on The Intensity of Pesticide Application[J].Population Resources and Environment in China,2017(08):90-97.”). So we more likely to use “pest control”.

(3)Response to comment: “The Authors may add some sentence to the discussion/conclusion on how the outsourcing service may contribute to broader IPM implementation, sustainable production, farming development.”

Response: In the chapter5“Conclusion and suggestion”(Page.18),we added further explanations about how the outsourcing service may contribute to broader IPM implementation, sustainable production, farming development.

We tried our best to improve the manuscript and made some changes in the manuscript. These changes will not influence the content and framework of the paper. And here we did list the changes and marked in red/blue in revised paper.

We appreciate for László VASA, PhD 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.

LinPing Wang

06.14.2021

Attachments
Attachment
Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx
Decision Letter - László Vasa, Editor

Analysis on Outsourcing Service Behavior of Rice Pest and Disease Control Based on Heckman Selection Model-- A Case Study of Ten Counties in Fujian Province

PONE-D-21-12763R1

Dear Dr. LinPing Wang,

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,

László Vasa, PhD

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

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 #1: All comments have been addressed

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 #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

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 #1: Yes

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 #1: Yes

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 #1: The authors accepted my comments and made the necessary improvements. Based on this latest version, I can accept it for publication.

Reviewer #2: The manuscripzt went through important changes, modifications that make it more clear, explicit and meaningful.

One remark where Reviewer raises reservation is the use of "pest control" instead of "pest management".

**********

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 #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

Formally Accepted
Acceptance Letter - László Vasa, Editor

PONE-D-21-12763R1

Analysis on Outsourcing Service Behavior of Rice Pest and Disease Control Based on Heckman Selection Model -- A Case Study of Ten Counties in Fujian Province

Dear Dr. Wang:

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

Prof. Dr. László Vasa

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 .