PONE-D-22-24487Public perceptions About Foreign Investment, A PLS-SEM Analysis toward republic sustainable infrastructurePLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Sohail,

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 26 2022 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,

Ghaffar Ali, 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. Please provide additional details regarding ethical approval in the body of your manuscript. In the Methods section, please ensure that you have specified the name of the IRB/ethics committee that approved your study.

3. PLOS ONE does not copy edit accepted manuscripts (https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/criteria-for-publication#loc-5). To that effect, please ensure that your submission is free of typos and grammatical errors.

4. Please provide additional details regarding participant consent. In the ethics statement in the Methods and online submission information, please ensure that you have specified what type you obtained (for instance, written or verbal, and if verbal, how it was documented and witnessed). If your study included minors, state whether you obtained consent from parents or guardians. If the need for consent was waived by the ethics committee, please include this information.

5. Thank you for stating the following financial disclosure: 

"No"

At this time, please address the following queries:

a) Please clarify the sources of funding (financial or material support) for your study. List the grants or organizations that supported your study, including funding received from your institution. 

b) State what role the funders took in the study. If the funders had no role in your study, please state: “The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.”

c) If any authors received a salary from any of your funders, please state which authors and which funders.

d) If you did not receive any funding for this study, please state: “The authors received no specific funding for this work.”

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

6. We note that you have indicated that data from this study are available upon request. PLOS only allows data to be available upon request if there are legal or ethical restrictions on sharing data publicly. For more information on unacceptable data access restrictions, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-unacceptable-data-access-restrictions. 

In your revised cover letter, please address the following prompts:

a) If there are ethical or legal restrictions on sharing a de-identified data set, please explain them in detail (e.g., data contain potentially sensitive information, data are owned by a third-party organization, etc.) and who has imposed them (e.g., an ethics committee). Please also provide contact information for a data access committee, ethics committee, or other institutional body to which data requests may be sent.

b) If there are no restrictions, please upload the minimal anonymized data set necessary to replicate your study findings as either Supporting Information files or to a stable, public repository and provide us with the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers. For a list of acceptable repositories, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-recommended-repositories.

We will update your Data Availability statement on your behalf to reflect the information you provide.

7. Please include your full ethics statement in the ‘Methods’ section of your manuscript file. In your statement, please include the full name of the IRB or ethics committee who approved or waived your study, as well as whether or not you obtained informed written or verbal consent. If consent was waived for your study, please include this information in your statement as well. 

8. Please ensure that you refer to Figure 2 in your text as, if accepted, production will need this reference to link the reader to the figure.

9. 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

Reviewer #2: Partly

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

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: 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: I am pleased to avail this review of the interesting study. Thank you for the opportunity to assess this informative paper entitled, “Land-use and Food Security in Energy Transition: Role of Heterogeneous Determinants of Food Supply.”

The present study defined that Food security in a just energy transition is a growing debate about designing sustainable food secure networks worldwide. Energy transition, land-use change, and food security are crucial factors for food security and provision. The increased demand for food products and customer preferences regarding food safety provide various issues for the current agriculture food supply chain (AFSC). Along with rising sustainability concerns, strict government regulation, food security, and traceability concerns compel managers, business houses, and practitioners working in AFSC to adopt new tools, techniques, and methodologies to model current food supply chain problems. Thus, in turn, design the food logistics network for food security. Hence, this study investigates the core determinants of food security and supply in Egypt, Morocco, Tunisia, and Lebanon over the period of 2010-2019.

Abstract

It explains the study theme well. I suggest the authors to remove minor grammar errors.

Graphical Abstract

It presents the study theme very well.

I believe the manuscript was well written, and the focus was original and interesting topic. The methods are appropriate and rigorously applied. The study findings are well explained and relevant to practical implications.

I am glad to review this informative study. However, I have some suggestions to improve this research paper.

1) I recommend the author improve the abstract and make it clearer and crispy.

2) I suggest the authors to add value addition in the introduction. The authors can read the suggested papers and understand how to write down the value addition.

3) I recommend the authors to add more to the policy implication section.

4) I recommend the authors to add limitations to the study

5) I recommend the authors to include future research directions. Please read recent papers and cite them as it will provide a better idea to write down the policy implications.

6) I recommend the authors to review the English language and correct grammar and spelling errors.

7) I recommend the authors to write the references as per the journal's format.

8) I recommend the author to discuss how this study can help this study area.

9) I recommend that the authors explain the analysis for food security and energy transition in this paper.

10). I recommend the Authors add more convincing recommendations to this research.

11). FDI is important element for any country, how can this study help for this study area.

12). any special reason to use PLS-SEM analysis for water quality in this paper.

13). How CPEC can be helpful for this region and neighboring countries?

Introduction

I have no suggestions for the introduction. It is comprehensive and succinct, draws upon a relevant literature base, and sets the stage for the analysis and contribution of this study. I suggest adding more recent literature.

Literature

The literature section is well established. I suggest adding some recent references to enhance the quality. I have no further recommendations for the literation section. It is comprehensive and succinct, draws upon a relevant literature base, and sets the stage for the analysis and contribution of this study. I recommend the authors include some fresh studies to support the literature.

Methods:

The authors can further refine this section with more details to make it smooth.

Provide details on the topic.

Results

This section is well described. Figures/Tables - overall, well organized. They just need more detail regarding what is actually being shown. I have no comments. Just check the Tables and Figures sequence. It would be helpful to add point estimates and results to support the key statements and findings within the actual text (not just in the tables) to help walk through the tables and figures; not for all associations, but at least the key results. The reader needs more guidance on interpreting the findings across the results section and tables/figures. Also, please add that content in the methods section. Please add information regarding how the results discuss the main objective of this study, including statistics for each level of analysis, so that the reader will be prepared for how to interpret all of the findings. The paper has presented the results, tables, and figures. Association in the results is supported.

The discussion

Add a paragraph and discuss the challenges of COVID-19. Thus, a paragraph about the challenges of the COVID-19 crisis should be added. Discuss how it has affected food security and energy needs worldwide. How the pandemic has affected business activities worldwide?

Reviewer #2: This paper falls short in some respects. I would like to offer few suggestions so that authors may improve it before publication. A few comments below in no specific order:

1. The organization of materials is loose. Before there is a viewpoint on empirical evidence, the author need efficiently rearrange related content, to form a sound logic chain in the style of "intriguing and persuasive narrative" (namely, a novel introduction and review, with emphasized practical and/or theoretic importance), only by which can they best other explanations on the same fact.

2. The Introduction section needs to strengthen the motivation of the paper. Why the method? How is it better than other methods that have been used? What new/interesting results are found? What is the main contribution of this paper to the literature? All these questions need to be answered.

3. References cited in the text must me matched with the final bibliography list

Reviewer #3: • Author needs to modify introduction part with latest new references.

• Literature part is well written, adding some studies from other regional will increase the understanding:

https://doi.org/10.1155/2022/7692086

https://doi.org/10.1155/2022/7492409

http://rebs.feaa.uaic.ro/articles/pdfs/257.pdf

• CPEC is a well-known project of China, what will be its positive signs for this region.

• Authors need to clarify different color combination in figures.

• Author used age as a moderator, please support it with references.

• Author needs to add more clear policy implications and recommendations.

• Manage all reference according to journal format.

**********

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

Reviewer #3: Yes: Muzammil Khurshid

**********

[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.

Public perceptions About Foreign Investment, A PLS-SEM Analysis toward republic sustainable infrastructure

PONE-D-22-24487R1

Dear Dr. Sohail,

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,

Ghaffar Ali, 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 #3: 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 #3: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #3: 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 #3: 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 #3: 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 #3: (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 #3: No

**********