Peer Review History

Original SubmissionMay 3, 2023

Attachments
Attachment
Submitted filename: response to reviewers.docx
Decision Letter - Najabat Ali, Editor

PONE-D-23-12368Spatial Impacts of the Intercity Flow of Long Stay International Visitors Based on Mobile Phone Data in Yangtze River Delta, ChinaPLOS ONE

Dear  Dr. MENG,

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,

Najabat Ali, Post doc

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at 

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and 

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. We 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.

3. Thank you for stating the following financial disclosure: 

   "The author(s) received no specific funding for this work." 

Please state what role the funders took in the study.  If the funders had no role, please state: "The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript." 

If this statement is not correct you must amend it as needed. 

Please include this amended Role of Funder statement in your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf.

4. In your Data Availability statement, you have not specified where the minimal data set underlying the results described in your manuscript can be found. PLOS defines a study's minimal data set as the underlying data used to reach the conclusions drawn in the manuscript and any additional data required to replicate the reported study findings in their entirety. All PLOS journals require that the minimal data set be made fully available. For more information about our data policy, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability.

"Upon re-submitting your revised manuscript, please upload your study’s minimal underlying data set as either Supporting Information files or to a stable, public repository and include the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers within your revised cover letter. For a list of acceptable repositories, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-recommended-repositories. Any potentially identifying patient information must be fully anonymized.

Important: If there are ethical or legal restrictions to sharing your data publicly, please explain these restrictions in detail. Please see our guidelines for more information on what we consider unacceptable restrictions to publicly sharing data: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-unacceptable-data-access-restrictions. Note that it is not acceptable for the authors to be the sole named individuals responsible for ensuring data access.

We will update your Data Availability statement to reflect the information you provide in your cover letter.

5. We note that you have stated that you will provide repository information for your data at acceptance. Should your manuscript be accepted for publication, we will hold it until you provide the relevant accession numbers or DOIs necessary to access your data. If you wish to make changes to your Data Availability statement, please describe these changes in your cover letter and we will update your Data Availability statement to reflect the information you provide.

6. PLOS requires an ORCID iD for the corresponding author in Editorial Manager on papers submitted after December 6th, 2016. Please ensure that you have an ORCID iD and that it is validated in Editorial Manager. To do this, go to ‘Update my Information’ (in the upper left-hand corner of the main menu), and click on the Fetch/Validate link next to the ORCID field. This will take you to the ORCID site and allow you to create a new iD or authenticate a pre-existing iD in Editorial Manager. Please see the following video for instructions on linking an ORCID iD to your Editorial Manager account: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_xcclfuvtxQ

7. We note that Figures 2,3,4,5 and 6 in your submission contain [map/satellite] images which may be copyrighted. All PLOS content is published under the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY 4.0), which means that the manuscript, images, and Supporting Information files will be freely available online, and any third party is permitted to access, download, copy, distribute, and use these materials in any way, even commercially, with proper attribution. For these reasons, we cannot publish previously copyrighted maps or satellite images created using proprietary data, such as Google software (Google Maps, Street View, and Earth). For more information, see our copyright guidelines: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/licenses-and-copyright.

We require you to either (a) present written permission from the copyright holder to publish these figures specifically under the CC BY 4.0 license, or (b) remove the figures from your submission:

a. You may seek permission from the original copyright holder of Figures 2,3,4,5 and 6 publish the content specifically under the CC BY 4.0 license.  

We recommend that you contact the original copyright holder with the Content Permission Form (http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=7c09/content-permission-form.pdf) and the following text:

“I request permission for the open-access journal PLOS ONE to publish XXX under the Creative Commons Attribution License (CCAL) CC BY 4.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). Please be aware that this license allows unrestricted use and distribution, even commercially, by third parties. Please reply and provide explicit written permission to publish XXX under a CC BY license and complete the attached form.”

Please upload the completed Content Permission Form or other proof of granted permissions as an "Other" file with your submission.

In the figure caption of the copyrighted figure, please include the following text: “Reprinted from [ref] under a CC BY license, with permission from [name of publisher], original copyright [original copyright year].”

b. If you are unable to obtain permission from the original copyright holder to publish these figures under the CC BY 4.0 license or if the copyright holder’s requirements are incompatible with the CC BY 4.0 license, please either i) remove the figure or ii) supply a replacement figure that complies with the CC BY 4.0 license. Please check copyright information on all replacement figures and update the figure caption with source information. If applicable, please specify in the figure caption text when a figure is similar but not identical to the original image and is therefore for illustrative purposes only.

The following resources for replacing copyrighted map figures may be helpful:

USGS National Map Viewer (public domain): http://viewer.nationalmap.gov/viewer/

The Gateway to Astronaut Photography of Earth (public domain): http://eol.jsc.nasa.gov/sseop/clickmap/

Maps at the CIA (public domain): https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/index.html and https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/cia-maps-publications/index.html

NASA Earth Observatory (public domain): http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/

Landsat: http://landsat.visibleearth.nasa.gov/

USGS EROS (Earth Resources Observatory and Science (EROS) Center) (public domain): http://eros.usgs.gov/#

Natural Earth (public domain): http://www.naturalearthdata.com/

[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: 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: Title: Spatial Impacts of the Intercity Flow of Long Stay International Visitors Based on Mobile Phone Data in Yangtze River Delta, China

The article titled " Spatial Impacts of the Intercity Flow of Long Stay International Visitors Based on Mobile Phone Data in Yangtze River Delta, China" addresses the spatial impacts of intercity flow of long stay foreign visitors on mobile data. discussed spatial dependence using multiscale geographically weighted regression (MGWR), and performed cluster analysis to understand the combination effects for the Yangtze River Delta (YRD) region in 2019. This study unfolds innovative insights, and it is comprehensive in its nature. However, it needs a few improvements to be accepted for publication. Hopefully, my detailed comments will help the authors to improve the manuscript's quality.

1. The problem definition and innovations presented in the introduction must be greater clarity and specificity. Rewrite the study’s contribution in sequence.

2. Literature review section is thin and have cited old references. Conduct a rigorous effort to update the literature review section by adding updated references from recent studies.

3. Methods are advanced, appropriate, and accurate. However, add some detail to justify the application of these techniques in this study.

4. Be consistent with table headings. Recheck the table numbers.

5. Add more citations in the explanations of results in discussion, also discuss the results more appropriately.

6. Revise the conclusion to describe your study's problem, methods, and innovative findings. Add limitations of the study.

7. Revise for typo mistakes.

Reviewer #2: It is my pleasure to review the manuscript for the esteemed journal. After reading this manuscript, i am suggestion some minor changes that may further improve this manuscript.

Abstract: Abstract section is relatively lengthy ,it should be short and to the point.

Introduction ,Literature review and methodology section is fine and very well written.

Result,discussion and conclusion : The arrangement of discussion and conclusion is not as per requirement of journal. Author first conclude the paper than include the discussion section, and this discussion section is also missing the support of previous studies.

**********

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

Comments from the reviewers:

Reviewer #1:

The article titled " Spatial Impacts of the Intercity Flow of Long Stay International Visitors Based on Mobile Phone Data in Yangtze River Delta, China" addresses the spatial impacts of intercity flow of long stay foreign visitors on mobile data. discussed spatial dependence using multiscale geographically weighted regression (MGWR), and performed cluster analysis to understand the combination effects for the Yangtze River Delta (YRD) region in 2019. This study unfolds innovative insights, and it is comprehensive in its nature. However, it needs a few improvements to be accepted for publication. Hopefully, my detailed comments will help the authors to improve the manuscript's quality.

1. The problem definition and innovations presented in the introduction must be greater clarity and specificity. Rewrite the study’s contribution in sequence.

Response: Thank the experts for their affirmation of the research in this article, and pointing out the relevant shortcomings. We have made the relevant changes in this section taking full account of your suggestions.

Firstly, with regard to the problem definition aspect, we have been more specific in describing and defining long stay international visitors(LSIV), LSIV in this paper refers to foreign visitors who stay in the destination country for more than 1 month, and we have highlighted the mechanisms and characteristics of their travel behavior.

Secondly, concerning the innovation section of the study, we have added more details to the research gaps and innovations in research methods based on the original manuscript that has already described the innovations in identifying data of long stay international visitors. Most of the current studies analyze the human mobility from the perspectives of both external representations and internal causes, but the role played by urban attributes in the mobility process and the explanation of spatial heterogeneity of mobility The attention is less on both, therefore, our study attempts to build reveal the differences in the spatial patterns of daily inter-city movements of long stay international visitors, explain the socio-economic factors associated with mobility patterns, and fill the relevant research gaps. Meanwhile, we use a multiscale geographically weighted regression model(MGWR) to explore the spatial heterogeneity of influencing factors, which further considers the differences in the bandwidth of action of each variable based on the original analysis method, which will be explained in detail in the methods section of Chapter 3.

Finally, regarding the contribution of this paper, we have presented it in the order of the chapters in the article, but we have taken your suggestions fully into account and have provided a more detailed sub-section of the contribution section. The main areas include: (1) contribution to the theoretical framework; (2) innovation in research methodology; (3) significance of spatial heterogeneity results; and (4) significance of spatial clustering.

2. Literature review section is thin and have cited old references. Conduct a rigorous effort to update the literature review section by adding updated references from recent studies.

Response: Thanks for this suggestion. Firstly, In response to the suggestion that "Literature review section is thin", we have made major global changes to the literature review section and divided it into the following three subsections: (1) In section 2.1 Population Migration theory and Space of Flow theory, we have retained the previous introduction to the Space of Flow theory and added a section on Population Migration theory. We also add a section summarizing the characteristics, similarities, and differences of the two theories. (2) In Section 2.2 Residential migration and human flow, we retain the previous section on the mechanisms and implications of human mobility, add an explanation of the motivation of human migration, discuss the effects and implications of these two behaviors, and address the spatial differences between residential migration and human flow. (3) 2.3 Impact factors of residential migration and human flow. In this section, we retain the analysis of factors influencing human flow, add a discussion of factors influencing resident migration under the "push-pull" theory, and compare the influencing factors of both, and find that population migration is more motivated by economic interests, while people mobility has more individual choice differences.

Secondly, we have updated some of the older references, mainly in the review of the literature in the section on impact factors. The literature is too old to explain the impact factors of migration and intercity human flow in the context of rapid urban growth and renewal, so we have updated it to use recent literature to support our point.

3. Methods are advanced, appropriate, and accurate. However, add some detail to justify the application of these techniques in this study.

Response: Thanks for this suggestion. In response to the expert suggestion, we have added a section in subsection 3.4.4 about the MGWR model being the most feasible and effective in this study. First, we provide an introduction to the application of the GWR model, and we will and add some references to support the argument. Secondly, we provide a more detailed description of the MGWR model, which, although it is an innovative use of a technical approach, has been effectively applied in various fields. Therefore we are building on the previous expert study and applying the technique to a more detailed spatial unit in the context of the current study. It is an extension and refinement of previous research using the technique.

4. Be consistent with table headings. Recheck the table numbers.

Response: Thanks for this suggestion. In response to expert advice, we have checked the formatting and various sections of the entire paper to ensure that such problems do not occur again.

5. Add more citations in the explanations of results in discussion, also discuss the results more appropriately.

Response: Thanks for this suggestion. We have revised the conclusion section of 5.1. Firstly, we have discussed the results of each analysis in more detail by point, including the following three main points: (1) a summary of the spatial distribution characteristics of long-stay international visitors; (2) a summary of the spatial heterogeneity characteristics of each impact factor; and (3) a summary of the spatial characteristics of the impact factor coefficients after cluster analysis. Secondly, in the analysis of the causes of the result, we add factual arguments and include more citations to support our explanations.

6. Revise the conclusion to describe your study's problem, methods, and innovative findings. Add limitations of the study.

Response: Thanks for this suggestion.

We have revised the discussion section of 5.2. In response to expert suggestions, we have reordered the lines and added sections as appropriate to express our views and the significance of this study more clearly.

Firstly, we added the discussion of the research object.

Secondly, we organize and explain the innovation points of this paper's research. The three main points are as follows: (1) A clearer discussion of the theoretical perspective of the study, which is based on the Space of Flow theory to discuss the travel behavior of long stay international visitors, rather than population migration theory. (2) Emphasis on the use of the MGWR model for the first time to study the impact of city attributes on the mobility patterns formed by the travel of this group of people. (3) This paper uses more timely and granular data, which is not possible with statistical data.

And we found some interesting phenomena that validate that the push-pull theory model does not use our research subjects. We find that the driving mechanism of long stay international visitors is not the same as that of local residents and short-term tourism behavior, citing literature to support our view, while suggesting that behind it reflects the issue of regional differences in the development of the Yangtze River Delta.

Finally, we discuss that the shortcoming of this study is that it has not been able to take into account the subjective willingness of individuals to travel, and that more in-depth research will be conducted from this perspective in the future.

7. Revise for typo mistakes.

Response: Thanks for this suggestion. We have further checked the text of the paper to ensure that such issues do not arise again.

Reviewer #2:

It is my pleasure to review the manuscript for the esteemed journal. After reading this manuscript, i am suggestion some minor changes that may further improve this manuscript.

Abstract: Abstract section is relatively lengthy,it should be short and to the point.

Response: Thanks for your positive comments on the study of this paper and for pointing out the existing shortcomings. We have taken your suggestions into account in this section and have made the relevant changes. The abstract section is not in line with the concise and easy-to-understand style of the journal, so we have reduced it to a short description of the aims of the study, the methods and content of the study and the results, and finally a brief statement of the significance of the study. The abstract section will be limited to around 200 characters.

Introduction, Literature review and methodology section is fine and very well written.

Response: Thank you for acknowledging the content of our research!

Result, discussion and conclusion: The arrangement of discussion and conclusion is not as per requirement of journal. Author first conclude the paper than include the discussion section, and this discussion section is also missing the support of previous studies.

Response: Thanks for this suggestion. In response to your suggestions, we have revised the conclusions in 5.1 and the discussion section in 5.2.

5.1 Conclusion

We have revised the conclusion section of 5.1. Firstly, we have discussed the results of each analysis in more detail by point, including the following three main points: (1) a summary of the spatial distribution characteristics of long-stay international visitors; (2) a summary of the spatial heterogeneity characteristics of each impact factor; and (3) a summary of the spatial characteristics of the impact factor coefficients after cluster analysis. Secondly, in the analysis of the causes of the result, we add factual arguments and include more citations to support our explanations.

5.2 Discussion

We have reordered the lines and added sections as appropriate to express our views and the significance of this study more clearly.

Firstly, we added the discussion of the research object.

Secondly, we organize and explain the innovation points of this paper's research. The three main points are as follows: (1) A clearer discussion of the theoretical perspective of the study, which is based on the Space of Flow theory to discuss the travel behavior of long stay international visitors, rather than population migration theory. (2) Emphasis on the use of the MGWR model for the first time to study the impact of city attributes on the mobility patterns formed by the travel of this group of people. (3) This paper uses more timely and granular data, which is not possible with statistical data.

And we found some interesting phenomena that validate that the push-pull theory model does not use our research subjects. We find that the driving mechanism of long stay international visitors is not the same as that of local residents and short-term tourism behavior, citing literature to support our view, while suggesting that behind it reflects the issue of regional differences in the development of the Yangtze River Delta.

Finally, we discuss that the shortcoming of this study is that it has not been able to take into account the subjective willingness of individuals to travel, and that more in-depth research will be conducted from this perspective in the future.

Attachments
Attachment
Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx
Decision Letter - Najabat Ali, Editor

Spatial Impacts of the Intercity Flow of Long Stay International Visitors Based on Mobile Phone Data in Yangtze River Delta, China

PONE-D-23-12368R1

Dear Dr. MENG,

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,

Najabat Ali, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Formally Accepted
Acceptance Letter - Najabat Ali, Editor

PONE-D-23-12368R1

Spatial Impacts of the Intercity Flow of Long Stay International Visitors Based on Mobile Phone Data in Yangtze River Delta, China

Dear Dr. Meng:

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. Najabat Ali

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 .