Affectation of COVID-19 pandemic on the use and abundance of wild resources in Tabasco, Mexico: A qualitative assessment

José Luis Martínez-Sánchez; Carolina Zequeira Larios; Florisel Hernandez Ramirez

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0299744

Peer Review History

Original SubmissionOctober 19, 2023
26 Dec 2023 Decision Letter - Bert B. Little, Editor PONE-D-23-33512Socioeconomic effect during the Covid-19 pandemic on the use and abundance of natural resources in Tabasco, Mexico: A qualitative assessmentPLOS ONE Dear Dr. Matinez, 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 Feb 09 2024 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, Bert B. Little, MA, PhD, FAAAS, FRAI, FRSM, FRSPH 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 participant consent. In the ethics statement in the Methods and online submission information, please ensure that you have specified (1) whether consent was informed and (2) 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. If you are reporting a retrospective study of medical records or archived samples, please ensure that you have discussed whether all data were fully anonymized before you accessed them and/or whether the IRB or ethics committee waived the requirement for informed consent. If patients provided informed written consent to have data from their medical records used in research, please include this information. 3. We note that the grant information you provided in the ‘Funding Information’ and ‘Financial Disclosure’ sections do not match. When you resubmit, please ensure that you provide the correct grant numbers for the awards you received for your study in the ‘Funding Information’ section. 4. Thank you for stating the following in the Acknowledgments Section of your manuscript: "This work was conducted and supported by the Council of Science and Technology of the State of Tabasco, Mexico [Consejo de Ciencia y Tecnologia del estado de Tabasco, PRODECTI-2020-01/019]. " We note that you have provided funding information that is not currently declared in your Funding Statement. However, funding information should not appear in the Acknowledgments section or other areas of your manuscript. We will only publish funding information present in the Funding Statement section of the online submission form. Please remove any funding-related text from the manuscript and let us know how you would like to update your Funding Statement. Currently, your Funding Statement reads as follows: “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. 5. We note that your Data Availability Statement is currently as follows: [All relevant data are within the manuscript and its Supporting Information files.] Please confirm at this time whether or not your submission contains all raw data required to replicate the results of your study. Authors must share the “minimal data set” for their submission. PLOS defines the minimal data set to consist of the data required to replicate all study findings reported in the article, as well as related metadata and methods (https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-minimal-data-set-definition). For example, authors should submit the following data: - The values behind the means, standard deviations and other measures reported; - The values used to build graphs; - The points extracted from images for analysis. Authors do not need to submit their entire data set if only a portion of the data was used in the reported study. If your submission does not contain these data, please either upload them as Supporting Information files or deposit them to a stable, public repository and provide us with the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers. For a list of recommended repositories, please see https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/recommended-repositories. 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. If data are owned by a third party, please indicate how others may request data access. Additional Editor Comments: The expert review indicates a Major Revision. Statistical methods and results need improvement. I would suggest a reanalysis. The writing is judged as also needing major revision. Suggested references to provide better context. [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: No ****** 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: No Reviewer #2: No ****** 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: No ****** 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: - Data availability statement should include a link to access the data in a public portal if no restrictions as stated - Table 1, consider incorporating corresponding p-values - Ethics: Consent of human participants is vital and needs to be mentioned - Questionnaire and consent forms need to be appended as supplementary materials Reviewer #2: - Your manuscript needs some revision. - The title of this study should be modify. - Abstract should clearly inform the important findings in the present study. - The lengthy sentences may be split in to smaller sentence without change of its meaning. - Your key words seem to be general and should be revised based on MESH. - Background: The introduction section should be revised. - Should add some new references published in PLOS ONE. You can add the following references: - Lak E, Mohammadi MJ, Yousefi H. Impact of COVID-19 acute respiratory disease on the risk factors attributed to cancer patients. Toxicology Reports. 2022 Jan 1;9:46-52. - Yazdani M, Baboli Z, Maleki H, Birgani YT, Zahiri M, Chaharmahal SS, Goudarzi M, Mohammadi MJ, Alam K, Sorooshian A, Goudarzi G. Contrasting Iran’s air quality improvement during COVID-19 with other global cities. Journal of Environmental Health Science and Engineering. 2021 Dec;19(2):1801-6. - Goudarzi G, Babaei AA, Mohammadi MJ, Hamid V, Maleki H. Geographical and meteorological evaluations of COVID-19 spread in Iran. Sustainability. 2022 Apr 30;14(9):5429. - Neisi A, Goudarzi G, Mohammadi MJ, Tahmasebi Y, Rahim F, Baboli Z, Yazdani M, Sorooshian A, Attar SA, Angali KA, Alam K. Association of the corona virus (Covid-19) epidemic with environmental risk factors. Environmental Science and Pollution Research. 2023 May;30(21):60314-25. - Rahimi Z, Mohammadi MJ, Araban M, Shirali GA, Cheraghian B. Socioeconomic correlates of face mask use among pedestrians during the COVID-19 pandemic: An ecological study. Frontiers in public health. 2022 Nov 16;10:921494. - Shirali GA, Rahimi Z, Araban M, Mohammadi MJ, Cheraghian B. Social-distancing compliance among pedestrians in Ahvaz, South-West Iran during the Covid-19 pandemic. Asian Journal of Social Health and Behavior. 2021 Oct 1;4(4):131. - Rahimi Z, Shirali GA, Araban M, Mohammadi MJ, Cheraghian B. Mask use among pedestrians during the Covid-19 pandemic in Southwest Iran: an observational study on 10,440 people. BMC Public Health. 2021 Dec;21:1-9. - Abbasi-Kangevari M, Malekpour MR, Masinaei M, Moghaddam SS, Ghamari SH, Abbasi-Kangevari Z, Rezaei N, Rezaei N, Mokdad AH, Naghavi M, Larijani B. Effect of air pollution on disease burden, mortality, and life expectancy in North Africa and the Middle East: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2019. The Lancet Planetary Health. 2023 May 1;7(5):e358-69. - Borsi SH, Goudarzi G, Sarizadeh G, Dastoorpoor M, Geravandi S, Shahriyari HA, Mohammadi ZA, Mohammadi MJ. Health Endpoint of Exposure to Criteria Air Pollutants in Ambient Air of on a Populated in Ahvaz City, Iran. Frontiers in Public Health. 2022;10. - Nikmanesh Y, Mohammadi MJ, Yousefi H, Mansourimoghadam S, Taherian M. The effect of long-term exposure to toxic air pollutants on the increased risk of malignant brain tumors. Reviews on Environmental Health. 2022 Jun 28. - Materials and Methods: The name of study should be brought in methods section. - Materials and Methods: please add the time duration of study. - Materials and Methods: Please describe how the location of sampling was selected, in details. - Materials and Methods: Statistical analysis of sample data should be modified. This section is unclear. - Result: The results section should be modified. - Result: Carefully check that all Tables. - Result: Please define the abbreviation. - Discussion: The discussion part should modify. - Discussion: Refer to more updated articles on similar studies in the discussion section and also reference list. - Discussion: Please highlight your study's strengths and limitations. - Discussion: Suggest adding a paragraph on directions for future research, practice and policy. - Conclusions should be short with important observations. ****** 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. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0299744.r001
Revision 1
25 Jan 2024 Author Response MS was revised and corrected following the two style pdf templates. The Funding Information was amended, withdrawn from the MS and placed in the Cover Letter and online submission. As an important issue, the editor request to reanalyze the data and to improve the statistical methods. However throughout the review, this point is never specified or a statistical procedure suggested, and then I could not define a way to make it. In such case, I would kindly request to indicate which procedures to follow instead. Anyway, I would like to justify the statistical analysis used in the study. Since the results (Table 1, Figures 2 – 4) are percentages, which takes values within a range 0 – 100 (0 – 1.0) and do not constitute an infinitive variable, a non-parametric test like Z test is recommended instead of parametric analysis by means or medians comparison. Their Z standard errors and respective P values were obtained (pg. 13). For percentage data which came from a Likert scale (classes of abundance, impact and use) a Cronbach's alpha test was first applied to ensure the reliability of the scale classes performed. All this is commented within the Methods section (pg. 11). The writing was revised and modified hoping is now better. Eight out of ten suggested references, plus others Plos One references, were incorporated to the MS. Response to Reviewers Raw data was made available through a supplementary S3 file. P values were incorporated to Table 1, and title and footnote arranged according to journal style. Original questionnaire (link, pg. 11 of MS) and english version questionnaire (S2 file), and Consent letter were added as supplementary files. Reviewer 2: As suggested by the reviewer, the title was modified. Abstract was improved as suggested. Keywords were replaced using MESH tool. Ten references were suggested to incorporate to the Background and eight references were included considering its pertinence. Plus this, two more recent references from Plos One were also included. The name of study was brought in methods section at the beginning. Sorry, this recommendation was not very clear for me. The reviewer asked to add the time duration of study. However this was already mentioned on line 291 of the MS. The reviewer asked to please describe how the location of sampling was selected, in details. This was amended in page 14 of the revised MS. The reviewer stated “Statistical analysis of sample data should be modified”, but there is nothing else suggesting how to improve the statistical procedures. In this way, I unfortunately could not select a different procedure to reanalyze data based on the objectives of the study, which I personally consider that these can be supported with the current statistical methods. Specifically, the paragraph from line 242 – 244 was unclear. It was rewritten. The unique table of the MS was improved. The reviewer stated “Refer to more updated articles on similar studies in the discussion section and also reference list.” Actually discussion section has about 10 references from 2020 to 2022, and I could only added one suitable reference from 2022 since this particular topic still remains scarcely studied and reported worldwide. Study's strengths and limitations were improved and included at the end of the MS. Future research directions were also improved and included at the end of the MS. Conclusions were shortened keeping the relevant findings of the study. Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0299744.r002
16 Feb 2024 Decision Letter - Bert B. Little, Editor Affectation of COVID-19 pandemic on the use and abundance of wild resources in Tabasco, Mexico: A qualitative assessment PONE-D-23-33512R1 Dear Dr. Matinez, 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, Bert B. Little, MA, PhD, FAAAS, FRAI, FRSM, FRSPH Academic Editor PLOS ONE Additional Editor Comments (optional): Reviewers' comments: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0299744.r003
Formally Accepted
28 Feb 2024 Acceptance Letter - Bert B. Little, Editor PONE-D-23-33512R1 PLOS ONE Dear Dr. Matinez, I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now being handed over to our production team. At this stage, our production department will prepare your paper for publication. This includes ensuring the following: * All references, tables, and figures are properly cited * All relevant supporting information is included in the manuscript submission, * There are no issues that prevent the paper from being properly typeset If revisions are needed, the production department will contact you directly to resolve them. If no revisions are needed, you will receive an email when the publication date has been set. At this time, we do not offer pre-publication proofs to authors during production of the accepted work. Please keep in mind that we are working through a large volume of accepted articles, so please give us a few weeks to review your paper and let you know the next and final steps. Lastly, 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 customercare@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 Professor Bert B. Little Academic Editor PLOS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0299744.r004

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 .