TFP Bioeconomy Impact post Covid-19 on the agricultural economy

C. A. Zuniga-Gonzalez

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0288885

Peer Review History

Original SubmissionApril 12, 2023
24 Apr 2023 Decision Letter - Noé Aguilar-Rivera, Editor PONE-D-23-10369 TFP Bioeconomy Impact post Covid-19 on the agricultural economy PLOS ONE Dear Dr. Zúniga-González, 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. The manuscript requires important changes: 1. Add a map of the regions: Northern America, Central America, South America, Northern Europe, Southern Europe, and Western Europe with the latest data on the economic impact of COVID in those regions 2. In the Literature Review section you must make a flow chart or incorporate VosViewer to strengthen the section, mainly the text: woźniak & tyczewska [15] presents the challenges and threats during the covid-19 pandemic, as well as opportunities that can be broucht by for bioeconomy Development and the author must use it for discussion 3. Add the objective, innovation, scope, research limitations and a methodological diagram 4. Tables 1-5 must be built by the author 5. Figure 1 should be improved 6. The conclusions are very poor, the agricultural sustainability approach and its prospective for decision making is not discussed Please submit your revised manuscript by Jun 08 2023 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'. We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript. Kind regards, Noé Aguilar-Rivera Academic Editor PLOS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0288885.r001
Revision 1
5 May 2023 Author Response Maidelyn R. Peregrin Editor Academico Dear editor thanks for all observations. Dear editor, thank you for all your observations that surely contribute to improving the quality of the research. Below I present in detail each of the improvements incorporated. 1. We note that Figures 4 & 5 in your submission contain map/satellite images which may be copyrighted. The Figure 5 was change as you suggested, regarding the Figure 4 is cited and was change They only ask that cite to Source: Dong, Du, and Gardner (2020). Was selected the 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 2. Can you please upload an additional copy of your revised manuscript that does not contain any tracked changes or highlighting as your main article file. This will be used in the production process if your manuscript is accepted. Please amend the file type for the file showing your changes to Revised Manuscript w/tracked changes. Please follow this link for more information: http://blogs.PLOS.org/everyone/2011/05/10/how-to-submit-your-revised-manuscript/ Yes is was made as you indicated. 3. Please include a legend/caption for figures 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6 in your main document. Dear regarding the type of Map if not necessary to aggregate a Legend. This type of map Bst Rgs Carlos https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0288885.r002
2 Jun 2023 Decision Letter - Noé Aguilar-Rivera, Editor PONE-D-23-10369R1 TFP Bioeconomy Impact post Covid-19 on the agricultural economy PLOS ONE Dear Dr. Zúniga-González, 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 Jul 16 2023 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, Noé Aguilar-Rivera Academic Editor PLOS ONE [Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.] 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: (No Response) Reviewer #2: (No Response) ******** 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: Partly Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: No ****** 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 Reviewer #2: 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: No Reviewer #2: No ****** 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: The author used panel date to investigate the impact of Covid-19 on bio-economy from six regions in the world, I think the aim of this paper is worth looking into, however, this paper needs tremendous polishing before it could meet publication requirement. 1.Language needs to be polished by an native English professional. This paper reads ambiguously and redundantly. 2.In the second line of the introduction, the author had put “Some authors have pointed out” without citing the work you were referring to. 3.In the forth paragraph of the introduction, the authors put “so the contribution of this study is focused on measuring the change in TFP in six regions of the world. Part of the research efforts” . From my perspective, the authors were trying to put forward the significance of the paper, however, you did not explain clearly why and how this method and this outcome would serve these means. 4.By the end of this paragraph, there was an extra “That” 5.The last paragraph of the introduction, the authors seemed to left out the number this paper was divided into, therefore this paragraph was a little confusing. The authors should treat this submission more seriously and avoid such mistakes. 6.I would suggest the authors reorganize the introduction part, explain clearly the background of the research, the methods you were using and why is was appropriate, the aim and objectives of this paper, and what outcome and achievement you were expecting from this paper. 7.I was confused by the way the authors arranged this paper, as you used Roman numbers for the introduction and literature review section but there was no numbering for total factor productivity. I suggest you rearrange each section and make it clear. 8. Even though the authors have listed many related papers in the literature review section, the discussion was absent as you went directly from literature review to total factor productivity. Literature review section was for you to list out related works and comment on the research background, then it leads to the research blank that this paper should be fulfilling. Without the discussion, the literature review is not complete. 9.Methods and data should be merged into one big section, I suggestion the authors state clearly why this method was employed first, then construct your model, then explain the data source. I don’t understand why controlled variables were not explain along with the model you constructed. 10.For statistics, I suggest the authors put a table of inputs and outputs and then list the statistics for discussion. 11.The authors had discussed the results from your data, however, you did not form an discussion with existing literatures, I suggest you add a “discussion” section to compare your research findings with existing research and discussion the significance and difference in your findings. 12.The aims of this paper is meaningful, therefore I look forward to see the finely polished version of this paper. Reviewer #2: Although I think the paper addresses a very relevant theme, the way it is presented at the moment makes it no publishable in my opinion. The paper lacks a proper introduction and an adequate analysis of the current literature. The authors provide a meta-analysis but it does not explain in which stream of the literature it is positioned and what the paper adds new and relevant to that stream of literature. The empirical work "seems" very interesting but it needs better explaination and presentation of data and results. Figures do not help much in the understanding of the problem addressed. The conclusions needs to be totally rethought of and re-written ****** 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 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. Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: review opinions.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0288885.r003
Revision 2
14 Jun 2023 Author Response 6/10/2023 Noé Aguilar-Rivera Editor Academico Dear editor thanks for all observations Dear Editor, thank you for all your observations that surely contribute to improving the quality of the research. Below I present in detail each of the improvements incorporated. All the change made go in yellow color. The author used panel data to investigate the impact of Covid-19 on the bio-economy from six regions in the world, I think the aim of this paper is worth looking into, however, this paper needs tremendous polishing before it could meet publication requirements. I appreciate your comments. The panel data is an essential condition for the Malmquist indices. I agree to make the results more visible in the face of regionalization and the measurement of productivity and efficiency that after Covid the governments justified with their respective economic policies. 1. Language needs to be polished by a native English professional. This paper reads ambiguously and redundantly. A review was done with a native English colleague, I hope your valuable observations in this regard are improved. 2. In the second line of the introduction, the author had put “Some authors have pointed out” without citing the work you were referring to. It was added. 3. In the fourth paragraph of the introduction, the authors put “so the contribution of this study is focused on measuring the change in TFP in six regions of the world. Part of the research efforts”. From my perspective, the authors were trying to put forward the significance of the paper, however, you did not explain clearly why and how this method and this outcome would serve these means. Thanks for this observation. It was eliminate and added in the fifth paragraph, I saw necessary separate in the next paragraph. This paragraph was reword. 4. By the end of this paragraph, there was an extra “That” It was eliminate 5. In The last paragraph of the introduction, the authors seemed to left out the number this paper was divided into, therefore this paragraph was a little confusing. The authors should treat this submission more seriously and avoid such mistakes. Thanks for this observation. It was correct. 6. I would suggest the authors reorganize the introduction part, explain clearly the background of the research, the methods you were using and why is was appropriate, the aim and objectives of this paper, and what outcome and achievement you were expecting from this paper. Thanks for this observation. It was added the table3 that resume the TFP used in bio based economic. The section was re organized and clarify the background, aim, contribution and objective. 7. I was confused by the way the authors arranged this paper, as you used Roman numbers for the introduction and literature review section but there was no numbering for total factor productivity. I suggest you rearrange each section and make it clear. My sincerest apologies for that. That was duly numbered both by section and by subsections. 8. Even though the authors have listed many related papers in the literature review section, the discussion was absent as you went directly from literature review to total factor productivity. Literature review section was for you to list out related works and comment on the research background, then it leads to the research blank that this paper should be fulfilling. Without the discussion, the literature review is not complete. I also apologize for this observation. The literature review focused on two components: one was the bioeconomy and the other was total factor productivity. One is the theoretical approach towards which we want to measure and the other is the tool that will measure it. Make an effort to bring these two components together in the discussion you recommend. Thanks for this observation. 9. Methods and data should be merged into one big section, I suggestion the authors state clearly why this method was employed first, then construct your model, then explain the data source. I don’t understand why controlled variables were not explain along with the model you constructed. The model was contructed and explained. It was made. 3. 1 3.1 Control Variables and Panel Data Sources 10. For statistics, I suggest the authors put a table of inputs and outputs and then list the statistics for discussion. It was added. 11. The authors had discussed the results from your data, however, you did not form an discussion with existing literatures, I suggest you add a “discussion” section to compare your research findings with existing research and discussion the significance and difference in your findings. Yes it was made. It was added. 12. The aims of this paper is meaningful, therefore I look forward to see the finely polished version of this paper. Thank you for your comment. Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: review opinions.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0288885.r004
20 Jun 2023 Decision Letter - Noé Aguilar-Rivera, Editor PONE-D-23-10369R2TFP Bioeconomy Impact post Covid-19 on the agricultural economyPLOS ONE Dear Dr. Zúniga-González, 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 Aug 04 2023 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, Noé Aguilar-Rivera Academic Editor PLOS ONE Journal Requirements: 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. 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: (No Response) Reviewer #2: 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 Reviewer #2: Partly ****** 3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: 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 Reviewer #2: 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 Reviewer #2: 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: The language has been improved significantly, as well as the quality of the paper. However, there are still some shortcoming I think the authors should work on： 1. The literature review section still lacks review and discussion. 2. You need to discuss the descriptive statistics before starting analysing. 3. Form a discussion with current literature by comparing your results to other research before you draw the conclusions. I look forward to see the three sections added before this paper goes to publication. Reviewer #2: Thank you for the new version of the paper which has beenmeaningfully improved. I still ave probems with the literature review which seems to me quite random and it is not very clear how and to what extent your work contribute to that strand of literature. I find fig. 4 and fig. 5 a bit useless and fig. 6 quite unreadable. I also suggest to imoprove the conclusions to highlight your original contribution and addition to the existing literature status quo. ****** 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 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. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0288885.r005
Revision 3
4 Jul 2023 Author Response 2023/07/04 Noé Aguilar-Rivera Academic Editor PLOS ONE Dear academic editor, thank you for your valuable management in this editorial process. Below I present the rebuttal letter indicating each of the improvements to the reviewers' observations. 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: (No Response) Reviewer #2: 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 Reviewer #2: Partly 3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: 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 Reviewer #2: 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 Reviewer #2: 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: The language has been improved significantly, as well as the quality of the paper. However, there are still some shortcoming I think the authors should work on： 1. The literature review section still lacks review and discussion. I appreciate the reviewer's comments.Corrections were made, marked in yellow. A paragraph was added at the beginning of section 2.1 and at the end of section 2.3, a paragraph was added summarizing the contributions of research on the subject of bioeconomy, and the Malmquist indices tool to measure efficiency and productivity. of the bioeconomy during and post covid. The emptiness is made clear and hence the contribution of this work. 2. You need to discuss the descriptive statistics before starting analyzing. We appreciate the reviewer's comments. The discussion of Table 1 moved to the results and discussion section before starting the analysis. It Added the discussion. 3. Form a discussion with current literature by comparing your results to other research before you draw the conclusions. I look forward to see the three sections added before this paper goes to publication. Thanks for your observation, the tree section were added. Reviewer #2: Thank you for the new version of the paper which has beenmeaningfully improved. I still have probems with the literature review, which seems to me quite random and it is not very clear how and to what extent your work contribute to that strand of literature. Dear thanks for these observations. Two paragraph has added with the intention of combine the bioeconomy with the índices Malmquist tool. The use of Indices Malmquist as measure tool of the Bioeconomy is a contribution study with controlled variables to level regional decreased or were not productive or technically efficient. I find fig. 4 and fig. 5 a bit useless and fig. 6 quite unreadable. Regarding the fig. 4 is for indicating region Covid affectation. The fig 4 is for indicating region of the study both suggested by back reviewer. Fig 5 is with the standard as journal ask. Regarding the Fig 6 is the better resolution on The VOSviewer software (RRID: SCR_023516) it also, was suggested by other back reviewer. I also suggest to improve the conclusions to highlight your original contribution and addition to the existing literature status quo. Thanks for this information and observation. It was added and improved. 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 Reviewer #2: No Kind regards, C.A. Zuniga-Gonzalez Researcher UNAN Leon Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Rebuttal Letter.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0288885.r006
6 Jul 2023 Decision Letter - Noé Aguilar-Rivera, Editor TFP Bioeconomy Impact post Covid-19 on the agricultural economy PONE-D-23-10369R3 Dear C. A. Zúniga-González 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, Noé Aguilar-Rivera Academic Editor PLOS ONE Additional Editor Comments (optional): Reviewers' comments: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0288885.r007
Formally Accepted
11 Jul 2023 Acceptance Letter - Noé Aguilar-Rivera, Editor PONE-D-23-10369R3 TFP Bioeconomy Impact post Covid-19 on the agricultural economy Dear Dr. Zúniga-González: 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. Noé Aguilar-Rivera Academic Editor PLOS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0288885.r008

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 .