Peer Review History

Original SubmissionSeptember 21, 2021
Decision Letter - Vassilis G. Aschonitis, Editor

PONE-D-21-30561Growth and Trend Analysis of Area, Production and Yield of Rice: A scenario of rice security in BangladeshPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Al Mamun,

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 Nov 25 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: https://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,

Vassilis G. Aschonitis

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. We suggest you thoroughly copyedit your manuscript for language usage, spelling, and grammar. If you do not know anyone who can help you do this, you may wish to consider employing a professional scientific editing service. 

Whilst you may use any professional scientific editing service of your choice, PLOS has partnered with both American Journal Experts (AJE) and Editage to provide discounted services to PLOS authors. Both organizations have experience helping authors meet PLOS guidelines and can provide language editing, translation, manuscript formatting, and figure formatting to ensure your manuscript meets our submission guidelines. To take advantage of our partnership with AJE, visit the AJE website (http://learn.aje.com/plos/) for a 15% discount off AJE services. To take advantage of our partnership with Editage, visit the Editage website (www.editage.com) and enter referral code PLOSEDIT for a 15% discount off Editage services.  If the PLOS editorial team finds any language issues in text that either AJE or Editage has edited, the service provider will re-edit the text for free.

Upon resubmission, please provide the following:

The name of the colleague or the details of the professional service that edited your manuscript

A copy of your manuscript showing your changes by either highlighting them or using track changes (uploaded as a *supporting information* file)

A clean copy of the edited manuscript (uploaded as the new *manuscript* file)”

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.

4. We note that Figures 1, 4, 6, and 8 in your submission contain [map/satellite] 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:

a. You may seek permission from the original copyright holder of Figures 1, 4, 6, and 8 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/

5.  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.

[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

**********

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

Reviewer #1: 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

**********

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

**********

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 rice production of Bangadesh is the third in the world.To identify the factor underlying the trend in rice production of Bangadesh is important to carry out the region-wise plant and relative policy strategies to o ensure rice security of Bangladesh. From 1969-70 to 2019-20, rice production of Boro rice is increasing at 0.97% per year, mainly dueing to the development of two Boro mega varieties. Meanwhile, High yielding variety adoption rate of Aus and Aman has increased to 72% and 73.5%, respectively. The findings is important for rice production in Bangadesh. However, several aspects mar the overall understanding and need to be addressed:

1.The solution of Figure1, Figre4, Figure6, Figure8, Figure9 is too low to read clearly. It is necessary to provide high solution of the above Figure.

2.For Figure3(a), Figure11, Table2, Table3 and Table4, two-way-ANOVA is needed to analyze the data. A 2-way-ANOVA is a two factorial analysis (here region/season and period as the 2 parameters). With suitable post-hoc test, this should be marked with distinct statistical groups (typically different alphabets) to allow one to see if there was difference in region/season and also between periods.

3.The coefficient of variation for different regions is needed in the Table 4 to support the result “but region to region yield variations were very high” (Line 337 to 338).

4.In Figure12, for Aman and Boro,most region have positive production growth rate. But, for Mymensingh, Bogura, Dinajpur, Rangpur, Dhaka and Faridpur have negative production growth rate where the other regions have positive production growth rate. 5.More detailed discussion is needed to illustrate this phenomenon.

Minor revision: 2019-202 (Line201) should be revised as “2019-20”.

**********

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

[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

Editor in Chief

Dear Sir,

Thank you so much for handling our manuscript. We have tried incorporate all of your suggestions and comments into the manuscript. We also have responded the reviewers’ comments. We are also grateful for you and the reviewers to improve our manuscript.

Response to academic editor comments

Comment 1: Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming.

Response 1: We have followed the manuscript requirement of PLOS ONE.

Comment 2: We suggest you thoroughly copyedit your manuscript for language usage, spelling, and grammar.

Response 2: We have edited our manuscript by the professional editor of Bangladesh Rice Research Institute. The details of the professional editor is

Md. Abul Kashem

Technical Editor

Publication and Public Relation Division

Bangladesh Rice Research Institute

Email: head.pprd@brri.gov.bd

Edited copy of the manuscript has been uploaded as a “copyedit file” under supporting information section.

Comment 3: Data Availability statement

Response 3: The area, production and yield of rice data by seasons data from 1969-70 to 2019-20 is uploaded as a “data availability file” under supporting information section. We also revised data availability statement as per comments.

Comment 4: Copyright guidelines for figures

Response 4: GIS map describing the regional variation of area, production, yield and total rice were prepared by authors. However, administrative shape file of Bangladesh was downloaded and used from website of the Bangladesh Agricultural Research Council. Shapefile republished from Bangladesh Agricultural Research Council (BARC) database (http://maps.barcapps.gov.bd/index.php) under a CC BY license, with permission from Computer and GIS unit, BARC, original copyright 2014.

For the clarification of the copyright of maps, we added the above statements in figures 1, 4, 6 and 8 and “Data Used” section of materials and methods (Line: 127-131).

Comment 5: Review of reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct

Response 5: Reference has been corrected according to the PLOS ONE journal style. We have carefully checked in text citations.

According to the suggestions of technical editor we have added some new references in the manuscript and cited in the text accordingly.

Response to reviewers’ comments

Thank you for your insightful and valuables suggestions and comments for the improvement of our manuscript. We believe it helps to increase the scientific value of the manuscript and we are grateful for that.

Comment 5.1: The resolution of Figure 1, Figure 4, Figure 6, Figure 8, Figure 9 is too low to read clearly. It is necessary to provide high resolution of the above Figure.

Response 5.1: We have prepared and uploaded high resolution figures according to suggestions.

Comment 5.2: For Figure3(a), Figure11, Table2, Table3 and Table4, two-way-ANOVA is needed to analyze the data. A 2-way-ANOVA is a two-factorial analysis (here region/season and period as the 2 parameters). With suitable post-hoc test, this should be marked with distinct statistical groups (typically different alphabets) to allow one to see if there was difference in region/season and also between periods.

Response 5.2:

Thank you for your valuable comments for adding the scientific value of the manuscript. Figures 3(a) and 11 were revised accordingly. But in Table 2,3 and 4 represents the exponential growth rate which contains single observation. So far our knowledge, two-way ANOVA is not suitable for this type of growth data. Therefore, for understanding the statistical variations, we have incorporated the coefficient of variation instead of two-way ANOVA in tables 2,3 and 4.

If you have any idea for analyzing this type of data, please let us know.

Comment 5.3: The coefficient of variation for different regions is needed in the Table 4 to support the result “but region to region yield variations were very high” (Line 337 to 338).

Response 5.3: We are grateful to for your comments. We have added coefficient of variation in the Table 4.

Comment 5.4: In Figure12, for Aman and Boro most region have positive production growth rate. But, for Mymensingh, Bogura, Dinajpur, Rangpur, Dhaka and Faridpur have negative production growth rate where the other regions have positive production growth rate. 5.More detailed discussion is needed to illustrate this phenomenon.

Response 5.4:

We have added the following statements (Line: 460-468) according to the comments.

“We found most of the regions have positive production growth rate for Aman and Boro season. But in Aus season, especially Mymensingh, Bogura, Dinajpur, Rangpur, Dhaka and Faridpur have negative production growth rate. This is due to most of the aforementioned regions have dominated Boro-Fallow-T. Aman cropping pattern. In addition, those regions have intensified with non-rice cash crops and thereby the required growth duration of Aus is insufficient. Noticeably, the released Aus rice varieties are not easily fit into that cropping pattern. Besides, some regions have single Boro dominated cropping patterns due to adverse agro-climatic and geographical conditions. This is why some regions have negative production growth rate.”

Comment 5.5: More detailed discussion is needed to illustrate this phenomenon

Response 5.5: Discussion has been revised accordingly.

Comment 5.6: Minor revision: 2019-202 (Line201) should be revised as “2019-20”.

Response 5.6: The year is corrected accordingly.

Attachments
Attachment
Submitted filename: RESPON~1.DOC
Decision Letter - Vassilis G. Aschonitis, Editor

Growth and trend analysis of area, production and yield of rice: A scenario of rice security in Bangladesh

PONE-D-21-30561R1

Dear Dr. Al Mamun,

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,

Vassilis G. Aschonitis

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

**********

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

**********

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

Reviewer #1: 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

**********

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

**********

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)

**********

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

Formally Accepted
Acceptance Letter - Vassilis G. Aschonitis, Editor

PONE-D-21-30561R1

Growth and trend analysis of area, production and yield of rice: A scenario of rice security in Bangladesh

Dear Dr. Al Mamun:

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. Vassilis G. Aschonitis

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 .