PONE-D-23-25181Impact of non-agricultural employment on industrial structural upgrading -Based on the household consumption perspectivePLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Cao,

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 Dec 03 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,

Grigorios L. Kyriakopoulos, 2 PhDs, 3 MSc, 2 MA, MEng, 2 BA, BSc

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. 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.

[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: The present paper is highly interesting and is a major contribution to scientific

progress. The paper deals with an interesting topic, especially for impact of non-

agricultural employment on industrial structural upgrading. This paper represents a

good attempt, which provides very good insight regarding with the non-agricultural

employment, useful to the readers of journal PLOS ONE. This paper is well

organised. It has a good structure and provides an easy and meaningful reading. The

English writing is acceptable.

I recommend the publication of the paper under the following major revisions:

1. It is necessary to be included further references .

e.g.

a) Zafeiriou, E., Spinthiropoulos, K., Tsanaktsidis, C., Garefalakis, S., Panitsidis, K..

Garefalakis, A. and Arabatzis, G. (2022). “ Energy and Mineral Resources

Exploitation in the Delignitization Era: The Case of Greek Peripheries ”. Energies ,

2022, 15(13), 4732.

b) Arabatzis, G., Tsiantikoudis, S., Drakaki N and Andreopoulou, Z. (2011).

"The LEADER + Community Initiative and the Local Action Groups in Greece".

Journal of Environmental Protection and Ecology, 12 (4A): 2255–2260.

c) Sofios, S., Arabatzis, G and Baltas, V. (2008). "Policy for management of water

resources in Greece". The Environmentalist, 28 (3):185-194.

3. The discussion should be improved. There needs to be more comparative analysis

with other studies.

4. Conclusions should be improved in a more concisely way and compared with

similar studies.

Reviewer #2: The authors deserve praise for presenting a compelling paper that offers substantial contributions to the field. The manuscript stands strong in numerous aspects, but there are certain areas that warrant refinement in future iterations.

1. One noticeable concern is the prolonged sentences scattered throughout the paper. These can make comprehension somewhat daunting. As an illustration, the abstract can be rephrased as:

“China's rural revitalization strategy has expanded non-agricultural job opportunities for rural residents. This job transition directly enhances farmers' incomes and household spending, which in turn advances the industrial structure. Using 2012-2021 provincial data, our study investigates how this job transition impacts industrial progress. Additionally, it probes into the influence of rural household spending on this relationship through a linkage model, helping to gauge the scope of the impact. The study further explores the regional variations of this effect and its robustness. The findings indicate that non-agricultural jobs significantly foster industrial advancements. However, this effect is not uniform across regions. Moreover, rural spending plays a pivotal role in this relationship. As a result, the government should encourage more non-agricultural jobs, stimulate domestic demand, and harness rural consumption as a key growth catalyst, especially after the "demographic dividend" wanes. It's also essential that policies are crafted with regional nuances in mind, making adjustments to cater to these differences and prevent any potential imbalances.”

2. The manuscript could benefit from a section detailing the research's limitations, any uncertainty in the results, and the future work designed to address these gaps.

3. Moreover, in the current global context, the omission of any mention of climate change—a pressing concern—is glaring. The authors might want to incorporate this theme into their analysis. For guidance on this topic, consider referring to the works of:

• Kyriakopoulos, G. L., & Sebos, I. (2023). Enhancing Climate Neutrality and Resilience through Coordinated Climate Action: Review of the Synergies between Mitigation and Adaptation Actions. Climate, 11(5), 105. https://doi.org/10.3390/cli11050105

• Kyriakopoulos, G. L., Sebos, I., Triantafyllou, E., Stamopoulos, D., & Dimas, P. (2023). Benefits and Synergies in Addressing Climate Change via the Implementation of the Common Agricultural Policy in Greece. Applied Sciences, 13(4), 2216. https://doi.org/10.3390/app13042216

• Ioannis Sebos and Leonidas Kallinikos, Greenhouse gas emissions in Greek agriculture: Trends and projections, E3S Web Conf., 436 (2023) 02007, https://doi.org/10.1051/e3sconf/202343602007

4. Given the profound repercussions of the COVID-19 pandemic, its absence from the discussion is notable. To incorporate insights on this, the authors might want to consult papers such as:

• Papadogiannaki, S., Liora, N., Parliari, D., Cheristanidis, S., Poupkou, A., Sebos, I., ... & Melas, D. (2023). Evaluating the Impact of COVID-19 on the Carbon Footprint of Two Research Projects: A Comparative Analysis. Atmosphere, 14(9), 1365. https://doi.org/10.3390/atmos14091365

• Progiou, A. G., Sebos, I., Zarogianni, A. M., Tsilibari, E. M., Adamopoulos, A. D., & Varelidis, P. (2022). Impact of covid-19 pandemic on air pollution: the case of athens, greece. Environmental Engineering and Management Journal, 21(5), 879-889.

5. Inclusion of a stakeholder analysis could further enhance the paper's depth. Potential references on this subject include studies by:

• Ioanna, N., Pipina, K., Despina, C. et al. Stakeholder mapping and analysis for climate change adaptation in Greece. Euro-Mediterr J Environ Integr 7, 339–346 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s41207-022-00317-3

• Sebos, I., Nydrioti, I., Katsiardi, P. et al. Stakeholder perceptions on climate change impacts and adaptation actions in Greece. Euro-Mediterr J Environ Integr (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s41207-023-00396-w

**********

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: Ioannis Sebos

**********

[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.

Impact of non-agricultural employment on industrial structural upgrading -Based on the household consumption perspective

PONE-D-23-25181R1

Dear Dr. Cao,

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,

Grigorios L. Kyriakopoulos, 2 PhDs, 3 MSc, 2 MA, MEng, 2 BA, BSc

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed

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: Yes

**********

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: none

Reviewer #2: The authors successfully addressed my comments. I suggest publication. Language has improved. Stakeholder analysis, climate change, COVID-19 effects, etc were reflected in the manuscript.

**********

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: Yes: Ioannis Sempos

**********