Peer Review History

Original SubmissionApril 27, 2022
Decision Letter - Md. Nazmul Huda, Editor

PONE-D-22-10030Research on sustainable poverty alleviation capacity construction of farmers in poor areas under the background of rural revitalization

Dear Dr. Zhai,

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 address the following issues:

  1. Method(s) is inadequately written in the abstract.
  2. Cite the literature consistently and give credits to authors to support your stories in the introduction instead of citing the studies [9-11) together at the end of a sentence.
  3. Table heading seems to be orphan. Write them correctly.
  4. Check grammar and typos throughout the manuscript.
  5. Follow journal's format and address reviewers' comments.

Please submit your revised manuscript by 30 days. 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.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Md Nazmul Huda, 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. Thank you for your ethics statement reading "The research does not involve ethical issues. The research did not involve minors. The research method of this manuscript is to inform the interviewees in the form of questionnaire." At this time, we request that you please confirm that the data was collected and analyzed anonymously, and that the authors did not collected any identifying information from the participants. Thank you for your attention to this request.

3. We note that the grant information you provided in the ‘Funding Information’ and ‘Financial Disclosure’ sections do not match.

When you resubmit, please ensure that you provide the correct grant numbers for the awards you received for your study in the ‘Funding Information’ section.

4. 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.

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

**********

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 work presented in this paper is interesting, in particular the data and the analysis which have been made on the data and the outcome which specifies factors affecting the poverty in rural areas. Nice work that show good analytical expertise.

The paper is not following the journal format, such as the titles, the bold face font, the spacing, etc making it difficult to follow in terms of where sections or paragraphs start etc.

Reviewer #2: The manuscript includes information to support its conclusions. The conclusions were correctly drawn by the author using an appropriate sample size and the provided data.

The manuscript does, however, require a few corrections to the grammar and punctuation.

**********

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: Yes: Nazli Mohammad

Revision 1

Response to Reviewers

1. Method(s) is inadequately written in the abstract.

Response 1:In the abstract, the description of the method is added, and the modification is in line 9-13. In addition, the method and process descriptions are added in the paper, which are detailed in lines 70-77, 88-93, 98-103, and 112-114.

2. Cite the literature consistently and give credits to authors to support your stories in the introduction instead of citing the studies [9-11] together at the end of a sentence.

Response 2:The literature review is supplemented and modified, such as the specific research background, multidimensional poverty research perspective, empirical research in China, etc., in line 24-32, line 36-39, and line 44-57, respectively.

3. Table heading seems to be orphan. Write them correctly.

Response 3:The table has been examined and is supplemented with a description of Table 3 in lines 132-136.

4. Check grammar and typos throughout the manuscript.

Response 4: Grammatical and typos errors were corrected and the manuscript was polished by a professional body. Please see the attachment for proof.

5. Follow journal's format and address reviewers' comments.

Response 5: It has been revised according to the format requirements of the journal and the comments of reviewers.

Response to Editors

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

Response 1: It has been revised to comply with the style requirements and naming requirements of the journal.

2. Thank you for your ethics statement reading "The research does not involve ethical issues. The research did not involve minors. The research method of this manuscript is to inform the interviewees in the form of questionnaire." At this time, we request that you please confirm that the data was collected and analyzed anonymously, and that the authors did not collected any identifying information from the participants. Thank you for your attention to this request.

Response 2: We have a supplementary statement on lines 118-120.

3. We note that the grant information you provided in the ‘Funding Information’ and ‘Financial Disclosure’ sections do not match.

Response 3: We checked the funding information.

4. 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 4: We supplement and modify the references, and the modification is in line 314-425.

Attachments
Attachment
Submitted filename: Response to Editors-1011.docx
Decision Letter - Md. Nazmul Huda, Editor

Sustainable poverty alleviation capacity construction of farmers in poverty-stricken areas under the background of rural revitalization

PONE-D-22-10030R1

Dear Dr. Yujia Zhai,

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,

Md. Nazmul Huda, PhD

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Formally Accepted
Acceptance Letter - Md. Nazmul Huda, Editor

PONE-D-22-10030R1

Sustainable poverty alleviation capacity construction of farmers in poverty-stricken areas under the background of rural revitalization

Dear Dr. Zhai:

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. Md. Nazmul Huda

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 .