Local adaptation and coping strategies to global environmental changes: Portraying agroecology beyond production functions in southwestern Ethiopia

Gemechu Y. Ofgeha; Muluneh W. Abshare

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0255813

Peer Review History

Original SubmissionApril 29, 2021
7 Jun 2021 Decision Letter - Shah Md Atiqul Haq, Editor PONE-D-21-14280 Appraising local adaptation and coping strategies to global environmental changes: Portraying agroecology beyond production functions in Southwestern Ethiopia PLOS ONE Dear Dr. Gemechu, 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 8 weeks. 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, Shah Md Atiqul Haq 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. Please include additional information regarding the survey or questionnaire used in the study and ensure that you have provided sufficient details that others could replicate the analyses. For instance, if you developed a questionnaire as part of this study and it is not under a copyright more restrictive than CC-BY, please include a copy, in both the original language and English, as Supporting Information. 3. 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: Dear authors, I would suggest that you follow the reviwers' comments and suggestions. The paper has many weaknesses including results, discussions, formatting and English related. I would ask you to revise the paper carefully and send it again for further consideration. Yours sincerely, [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 Reviewer #3: Partly ******** 2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes 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 #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes Reviewer #3: 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 Reviewer #3: No ****** 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 well written and justified with reference to previous studies. The work is novel and nicely compiled. However few minor corrections are required before further processing. Abstract is way too long, there is a need to concise it according to the journal requirements. Formatting of all the sections should be rechecked. Headings should be according to the journal's format. References need to be uniform in formatting. Conclusion of the study should not be more then a paragraph or two. It should only focus on main outcome of the study. Conclusion section should be shortened as well. Best wishes. Reviewer #2: Thoroughly check the manuscripts and remove all the spelling mistakes. On the other hand, cross check all the references that quoted in the text with reference list. Discussion section needs improvements. Line No : 709 correct the spelling (Acknowledgements) Line No: 716 Replace Reference with References Reviewer #3: The article need to improve according to format and author should clear the results and discussion regarding the statistical analysis There should evidence from where collect the data Should mention related references Grammatically mistakes should be removed ****** 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:** Dr. Adnan Akhter 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. Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: PONE-D-21-14280 Overall comments.doc https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0255813.r001
Revision 1
1 Jul 2021 Author Response Editor Comments: Dear authors, I would suggest that you follow the reviewers' comments and suggestions. The paper has many weaknesses including results, discussions, formatting and English related. (Response): We appreciate you and the reviewers for your precious time in reviewing our paper and providing valuable comments. We have carefully considered the comments, incorporated the suggestions, and tried our best to address every one of them. We hope the manuscript after careful revisions meet your high standards. Specifically, we have carefully considered removing the grammatical problems in this manuscript, and an exhaustive correction was made in this revised version. However, these grammatical corrections were too much that we didn’t include in this response letter, and in the ‘Manuscript Revised with highlighted change’ Reviewer #1 (Comment: General) The manuscript is well written and justified with reference to previous studies. The work is novel and nicely compiled. However, few minor corrections are required before further processing. (Response): Thank you very much. We have incorporated the suggested correction in all parts of this paper. (Comment: P2: L26-58) “Abstract is way too long, there is a need to concise it according to the journal requirements.” (Response): Thank you very much. We have revised the abstract based on your comments. (Comment: General) “Formatting of all the sections should be rechecked.” (Response): Thank you. We have rechecked all sections of the paper based on the journal’s format. (Comment: General) “Headings should be according to the journal's format.” (Response): Thank you for the suggestions. We have made revisions for the heading and subheadings as follows: • Conceptual frameworks (page 5: Line 137) • Research methods and materials (page 8: Line 238) (Comment: P27: L840-1009) “References need to be uniform in formatting.” (Response): Thank you very much. We have checked the references for its consistency. (Comment: P24: L742) “Conclusion of the study should not be more than a paragraph or two. It should only focus on main outcome of the study” (Response): Thank you for the suggestions. We have tried to condense the conclusions but it is difficult to conclude for all specific objectives within one or two paragraphs. Reviewer # 2 (Comment: General) “Thoroughly check the manuscripts and remove all the spelling mistakes.” (Response): Thank you for the suggestions. We have made revisions accordingly. (Comment: P27: L840-1009) “cross check all the references that quoted in the text with reference list.” (Response): Thank you very much. We have rechecked all the citations in the texts against the reference list. We found that the citation on the Page 13: Line 399 and page 17: Line 490 was not referenced. Now it is included in the references list as follows: 39. Mbang A, Owino J, Kones J, Meffeja F, Dibog L. Evaluation of Ensiled Brewer’ s Grain in the Diet of Piglets by One Way Multiple Analysis of Variance, MANOVA. 2007. 41. Pallant J. Survival Manual:A step by step guide to data analysis using SPSS. 4th ed. New York, USA: Open University Press; 2010. (Comment: P21: L614) “Discussion section needs improvements.” (Response): Thank you for the comments. We have made revisions that hopefully this part after careful revisions meet the required standard. (Comment: P27:L833) “Line No: 709 correct the spelling (Acknowledgements)” (Response): Thank you very for the suggestion. We have revised. (Comment: P27: L840) “Line No: 716 Replace Reference with References” (Response): Thank you for the suggestion. We have revised. Reviewer #3 (Comment: General) “The article needs to improve according to format” Response: Thank you very much for the suggestion. We have revised the manuscript according to the journal’s format. Several formatting errors such as font size, text formatting, and the heading and subheadings were corrected in this revised version. (Comment: General) “author should clear the results and discussion regarding the statistical analysis.” (Response): Thank you very much. We have carefully considered the statistical assumptions and rules in the analysis applied in this study. It is our pleasure to accept you, in case if you have any specific comments/ suggestions regarding the statistical analysis. (Comment: P11: L337-339) “There should evidence from where collect the data. Should mention related references” (Response): Thank you very much for the comments. We have accepted all the comments, and rewritten this part to be clear with the sources of data as follows: The small-scale farmers’ household heads, and the focus group discussants drawn from local notoriety individuals and the elderly in the Anger watershed, and experts from relevant zonal and districts offices in the east Wallagga administrative zone were the primary sources of data (P11: L337-339) (Comment: General) “Grammatically mistakes should be removed” (Response): Thank you very much. We have carefully considered the comments regarding the grammatic problems in this manuscript, and an exhaustive correction was made in this revised version. However, these Grammarly corrections were too much to include in this response letter. Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0255813.r002
21 Jul 2021 Decision Letter - Shah Md Atiqul Haq, Editor PONE-D-21-14280R1 Local adaptation and coping strategies to global environmental changes: portraying agroecology beyond production functions in southwestern Ethiopia PLOS ONE Dear Dr. Gemechu Yigezu Ofgeha, 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 four weeks. 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, Shah Md Atiqul Haq Academic Editor PLOS ONE Journal Requirements: Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice. Additional Editor Comments (if provided): Dear authors, Please address the final remarks of the reviwers. I am looking forward to receiving the final revised version. [Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.] 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: (No Response) 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: (No Response) Reviewer #2: Comments for authors i) Conclusion section is too lengthy please try to shorten it if possible ii) Carefully cross check all the references that quoted in the text with reference list iii) Over all article is suitable/fit for publication in Plos One Journal ****** 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: Yes:** Dr. Adnan Akhter 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: Final PONE-D-21-14280 R1 comments.doc https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0255813.r003
Revision 2
23 Jul 2021 Author Response Once again, we appreciate the editor and reviewer for their precious time in reviewing our paper and providing valuable comments. We have carefully considered the comments, incorporated the suggestions, and tried our best to address every one of them. We hope the manuscript after careful revisions meet your high standards. Our responses hereunder consist the comments regarding the journal requirements and the editor’s and reviewers’ comments on the manuscript. (Comments on the Journal Requirements): Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice. (Response): Thank you for the suggestion. We have carefully considered regarding the references of this manuscript. Now, we have ensured that it is complete and correct. Moreover, the issue of retracted articles is fully considered in this revision. Thus, we approved that no retracted sources were referenced in this manuscript. (Editor Comments): Dear authors, please address the final remarks of the reviewers. (Response): We appreciate you and the reviewers for your precious time in reviewing our paper and providing valuable comments. We have carefully considered the comments, incorporated the suggestions, and tried our best to address every one of them. We hope the manuscript after careful revisions meet your high standards. Reviewer #1 No comment provided Reviewer # 2 (Comment: General) “Conclusion section is too lengthy please try to shorten it if possible.” (Response): Thank you for the suggestions. We have tried to condense the conclusions again. However, our concern is that trying to shorten more will result in missing to conclude for all specific objectives of the study. (Comment: General) “Carefully cross check all the references that quoted in the text with reference list.” (Response): Thank you very much for the reminder. We have carefully rechecked all the citations in the texts against the reference list. (Comment: General) “Over all article is suitable/fit for publication in Plos One Journal.” (Response): Thank you very much for the recommendations. Yours and other reviewers’ valuable comments have pivotal role for the fitness of this manuscript. Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0255813.r004
26 Jul 2021 Decision Letter - Shah Md Atiqul Haq, Editor Local adaptation and coping strategies to global environmental changes: portraying agroecology beyond production functions in southwestern Ethiopia PONE-D-21-14280R2 Dear Gemechu Yigezu Ofgeha, 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, Shah Md Atiqul Haq Academic Editor PLOS ONE Additional Editor Comments (optional): Dear authors, Congratulations!!! Your paper has been accepted. Reviewers' comments: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0255813.r005
Formally Accepted
29 Jul 2021 Acceptance Letter - Shah Md Atiqul Haq, Editor PONE-D-21-14280R2 Local adaptation and coping strategies to global environmental changes: portraying agroecology beyond production functions in southwestern Ethiopia Dear Dr. Ofgeha: 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. Shah Md Atiqul Haq Academic Editor PLOS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0255813.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 .