PONE-D-21-17208

A prediction method of fire frequency: Based on the optimization of SARIMA model

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Ma,

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 consider all the comments

Please submit your revised manuscript by 29 June 2021. 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,

Ahmed Mancy Mosa, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

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

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

2. Thank you for stating the following in the Acknowledgments Section of your manuscript:

"This work is funded by National Key R&D Program of China (No.

2018YFC0809700), The basic research business expenses of CUEB (No.

XRZ2020018)"

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

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

"YES - Specify the role(s) played."

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

3. In your Data Availability statement, you have not specified where the minimal data set underlying the results described in your manuscript can be found. PLOS defines a study's minimal data set as the underlying data used to reach the conclusions drawn in the manuscript and any additional data required to replicate the reported study findings in their entirety. All PLOS journals require that the minimal data set be made fully available. For more information about our data policy, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability.

Upon re-submitting your revised manuscript, please upload your study’s minimal underlying data set as either Supporting Information files or to a stable, public repository and include the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers within your revised cover letter. For a list of acceptable repositories, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-recommended-repositories. Any potentially identifying patient information must be fully anonymized.

Important: If there are ethical or legal restrictions to sharing your data publicly, please explain these restrictions in detail. Please see our guidelines for more information on what we consider unacceptable restrictions to publicly sharing data: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-unacceptable-data-access-restrictions. Note that it is not acceptable for the authors to be the sole named individuals responsible for ensuring data access.

We will update your Data Availability statement to reflect the information you provide in your cover letter.

[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: No

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: No

**********

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: 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: 1.There is an error in Table 2 with 23,7 万， it's Chinese unit.

2.The fire data in the paper includes forest fires and urban fires, but forest fires are mainly affected by climatic factors, and urban fires are mainly affected by human factors. Whether the data application is reasonable with this model？

3.Please explain why the number of fires in January 2014 is obviously abnormal？

Reviewer #2: The paper requires a major revision. Generally the Introduction and Methods section are inadequate, which makes following the results and conclusions difficult. I provide technical difficulties with the paper below and stopped at the Results, because the manuscript requires a refocus and an attention to clarity to position the results and conclusion. For example, many conclusions are drawn within the results with real supporting evidence, it seems at times the authors were using conventional wisdom to explain the patterns presented. That is not sufficient for a scientific paper.

Introduction:

The Introduction is difficult to follow and does not set the reader up to understand the research objectives and how they address a gap in knowledge. The grammar needs to be addressed, and entire concepts like what type of fire events are even the focus of the paper (natural or anthropogenic) are entirely lost.

Line 15: What fire department?

Line 18: What kind of fire data, natural (e.g., forests, ecosystems) or anthropogenic (human infrastructure), because in the previous sentences the authors introduced natural and anthropogenic fire examples.

Line 19: fire frequency as it relates to what kind? (see previous comment

Line 33: Define “ANN” and “SVM”

Line 36: “used”; should “Big” be capitalized?

Line 43: earlier than what?

Line 44: fire alarm systems related to what? See Line 18 comment.

Line 46-48: Revise sentence structure

Line 55: edit stochastic

Line 59: in the early stage of what? Next sentence: what does “it” refer to?

Line 62: Not appropriate use of the pronoun “it”

Line 67: What is meant by “to realize”

Methods:

What is the China Fire YearBook? What types of fire data are the authors referring to? The methods section presents the statistical model forms, but does not present the actual approach to evaluating the fire data.

Line 80: “In the 20th century” is likely not needed consider removing.

Line 82: Revise for English

Line 97: This sentence does not make sense, please revise for grammar.

Line 98: The order of the model is determined by the autocorrelation function and the AIC information criterion?

Equation 2: The authors could consider removing this equation and simply reference Burnham and Anderson 2002; in fact, there is no reference to Burnham and Anderson 2002 and there should be for AIC.

Results:

Generally, it is difficult to understand and interpret the results because of the insufficient methods section.

Line 130: Do the authors mean from 0-6 on a 24hr basis? If so how does it reach a minimum at 6pm? And if it increases slowly from 6 am, then at 14:00 that would be 2pm which is before 6pm. It appears the time is incorrectly reported, please revise.

Line 127- 136: The authors should reconsider describing the trends presented in the graphs, and providing results that are not easily communicated or presented in the graphs.

Line 139: What are production and life rules, and what evidence supports this conclusion?

Line 143: What are above fires?

Line 141-148: This seems like a “common sense” conclusion but there is no evidence presented for this. I do not think the authors have spent time analyzing why the patterns they present occurred, just seems ike conventional wisdom was deployed.

Line 158-165: Again these conclusions just do not seem like they are steeped in any kind of analyses.

**********

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.

A prediction method of fire frequency: Based on the optimization of SARIMA model

PONE-D-21-17208R1

Dear Dr. Ma,

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,

Ahmed Mancy Mosa, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments: