Peer Review History

Original SubmissionFebruary 22, 2022
Decision Letter - László Vasa, Editor

PONE-D-22-05342Towards Developing a Beef Meat Export Oriented Policy in Tanzania: -Exploring the Factors that Influence Beef Meat Exports-PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Kibona,

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  May 20, 2022. 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,

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.

[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: Partly

**********

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 manuscript is technically solid, the data obtained by the authors supports the investigation and its conclusions, and thus the study exhibits novel research findings. What was particularly applauded was the careful examination of the causes for low exports, especially given that with the minor export constraints, Tanzanian beef meat exports could expand proportionately. According to the given data, the authors have not previously published this study. The paper's format is logical, beginning with an overview of the problem and progressing through the methods and sources of data collecting. The article spans the years 1985 through 2020 and employs descriptive and inferential statistics, as well as regression (econometric) analysis models, to examine the data. The studies are carried out to a high technical degree and are sufficiently detailed within the publication, demonstrating that the analysis was carried out appropriately and systematically. The authors have included all data supporting their findings in their publication in tables, along with explanations for those tables. Additionally, the conclusion is given in the appropriate manner, the evidence supports the conclusions, and the policy implications are reasonable and based on the findings. The research complies with all applicable ethical and research integrity standards, and the work adheres to appropriate reporting criteria and community standards for data access. The only (relatively minor) issue with the most recent version of the paper is that it contains a few typos, extra spaces before percentage characters, and missing spaces or letters (e.g. Tanzanian government, p. 10), but my overall recommendation is to publish the paper following these minor revisions to correct the typos.

Reviewer #2: Tha paper main goal is to discover the factors which influence the beef export of Tazania. Zhe topic is somewhat original, however, its statistical approach is, indeed. So I accept it as an original submission.

While I think the manuscript is a good base for a scientific communication, I think the following changes should be made before publication:

- Literature review should be a separate part of the paper. Now it is integrated with the introduction but not enough and isn't made appropriately. So the literature review part should be extended, touching the general issues of the beef value chain and export significance.

- The methodology description is too technical, hard to follow logically - it should be explained, why the selected method was chosen for the research (worth to consider to start the section with the conceptual framework).

- Source for Table 2 is not indicated

- Figure 1 is missing, we just can see the title

- The abstract should be rewritten to be more compact and comprehensive.

- Conclusions are too short and do not contain implications

- Limitations of the research should be indicated

**********

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

Response to the Reviewers’ Comments

We thank the editor and reviewers for taking their time to read and give their comprehensive and constructive comments, which have improved our manuscript. Below; we provide a point by point response to your comments and suggestions and how each one has been addressed in the revision.

Response to Reviewer 1 Comments

Comment 1: The manuscript is technically solid, the data obtained by the authors supports the investigation and its conclusions, and thus the study exhibits novel research findings. What was particularly applauded was the careful examination of the causes for low exports, especially given that with the minor export constraints, Tanzanian beef meat exports could expand proportionately. According to the given data, the authors have not previously published this study. The paper's format is logical, beginning with an overview of the problem and progressing through the methods and sources of data collecting. The article spans the years 1985 through 2020 and employs descriptive and inferential statistics, as well as regression (econometric) analysis models, to examine the data. The studies are carried out to a high technical degree and are sufficiently detailed within the publication, demonstrating that the analysis was carried out appropriately and systematically. The authors have included all data supporting their findings in their publication in tables, along with explanations for those tables. Additionally, the conclusion is given in the appropriate manner, the evidence supports the conclusions, and the policy implications are reasonable and based on the findings. The research complies with all applicable ethical and research integrity standards, and the work adheres to appropriate reporting criteria and community standards for data access. The only (relatively minor) issue with the most recent version of the paper is that it contains a few typos, extra spaces before percentage characters, and missing spaces or letters (e.g. Tanzanian government, p. 10), but my overall recommendation is to publish the paper following these minor revisions to correct the typos.

Response: We thank the reviewer for these comments. We appreciate the compliment from the reviewer that the manuscript is technically solid, the data obtained by the authors supports the investigation and its conclusions, and thus the study exhibits novel research findings. However, few typos, extra spaces before percentage characters, and missing spaces or letters have been corrected.

Response to Reviewer 2 Comments

Comment 1: The paper main goal is to discover the factors which influence the beef export of Tanzania. The topic is somewhat original; however, its statistical approach is, indeed. So I accept it as an original submission.

Response: We thank the reviewer for seeing the useful information contained in our manuscript and accept it as an original submission.

Comment 2: Literature review should be a separate part of the paper. Now it is integrated with the introduction but not enough and isn't made appropriately. So the literature review part should be extended, touching the general issues of the beef value chain and export significance.

Response: We thank the reviewer for this comment. We are sorry for the shortcomings in our previous manuscript. The literature review part has been extended, touching the general issues of the beef value chain and export significance.

Comment 3: The methodology description is too technical, hard to follow logically - it should be explained, why the selected method was chosen for the research (worth to consider starting the section with the conceptual framework).

Response: We thank the reviewer for this important comment. We have followed the suggestions from the reviewer to indicate why the method was chosen for the research in our current manuscript. Again we have considered starting the section with the conceptual framework.

Comment 4: Source for Table 2 is not indicated.

Response: We thank the reviewer for yet another important reminder. We have indicated the Sources for Table 2.

Comment 5: Figure 1 is missing, we just can see the title

Response: We thank the reviewer for this comment. Figure 1 is included in the manuscript.

Comment 6: The abstract should be rewritten to be more compact and comprehensive?

Response: We thank the reviewer for this comment. We have rewritten the abstract to be more compact and comprehensive. We hope it is clear now.

Comment 7: Conclusions are too short and do not contain implications

Response: We thank the reviewer for this comment. We double-checked and expanded the conclusions, as well as added implications.

Comment 8: Limitations of the research should be indicated

Response: We thank the reviewer for this comment. We have indicated Limitations of the research in our revised manuscript.

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

Towards Developing a Beef Meat Export Oriented Policy in Tanzania: -Exploring the Factors that Influence Beef Meat Exports-

PONE-D-22-05342R1

Dear Dr. Kibona,

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

**********

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: After reading the submission, the adjustments, and the requests made by the other reviewer, I am certain that the authors have responded to all of the changes. Since I was able to see figure one, I believe that the changes have made this submission acceptable.

**********

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 - László Vasa, Editor

PONE-D-22-05342R1

Towards Developing a Beef Meat Export Oriented Policy in Tanzania: -Exploring the Factors that Influence Beef Meat Exports-

Dear Dr. Kibona:

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 .