Peer Review History

Original SubmissionSeptember 20, 2023
Decision Letter - Abdulkader Murad, Editor

PONE-D-23-30564Assessing the Environmental Factors Affecting the Sustainability of Ayni Falaj SystemPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Alkindi,

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 Jan 24 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,

Abdulkader Murad, Ph.D

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 note that PLOS ONE has specific guidelines on code sharing for submissions in which author-generated code underpins the findings in the manuscript. In these cases, all author-generated code must be made available without restrictions upon publication of the work. Please review our guidelines at https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/materials-and-software-sharing#loc-sharing-code and ensure that your code is shared in a way that follows best practice and facilitates reproducibility and reuse.

3. Note from Emily Chenette, Editor in Chief of PLOS ONE, and Iain Hrynaszkiewicz, Director of Open Research Solutions at PLOS: Did you know that depositing data in a repository is associated with up to a 25% citation advantage (https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0230416)? If you’ve not already done so, consider depositing your raw data in a repository to ensure your work is read, appreciated and cited by the largest possible audience. You’ll also earn an Accessible Data icon on your published paper if you deposit your data in any participating repository (https://plos.org/open-science/open-data/#accessible-data).

4. 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.

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. Please include a separate caption for each figure in your manuscript

7. We note that Figures 1,2,4,5,6 and 7 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 (1) present written permission from the copyright holder to publish these figures specifically under the CC BY 4.0 license, or (2) remove the figures from your submission:

a. You may seek permission from the original copyright holder of Figures 1,2,4,5,6 and 7 to 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/

8. 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.

Additional Editor Comments:

Reviewer 1

RE: Assessing the Environmental Factors Affecting the Sustainability of Ayni Falaj System

This manuscript is well prepared and of high quality. In this article, the order of presenting the content is well respected and innovative. Therefore, I consider this manuscript suitable for acceptance for publication in the journal. However, before acceptance, minor revisions are required as follows:

1- It is better to separate the section related to the study area in the materials and methods section and put it before the materials and methods section.

2- It is better to edit the text accurately by an English speaker.

Reviewer 2

The article Assessing the Environmental Factors Affecting the Sustainability of Ayni Falaj

System has been read in its entirety by this reviewer and highlighted areas indicate the

locations of my following comments. It is important to note that my specialty is in multivariate

GIS as it pertains to ecology, however I am very familiar with the software and process

described in this paper as I use them on a regular basis. I have found its use of GIS processes

appropriate, innovative, and enlightening. Please see the following comments as suggestions to

improve the article's readability and specificity.

Comments:

Lines 38 - 40: These two sentences appear redundant and could be shortened to a single

sentence.

Line 49: The situation described does not have to be specific to a country and "within the

country" could be dropped.

Line 53(1): "lives" could be replaced with "way of life"

Line 53(2): "urbanization and" falls under the category of changes to land use and could be

dropped from the sentence.

Line 56: "this" may be dropped from the sentence.

Line 58: "confronts" feels inappropriate may be replaced with "faces".

Line 189: This sentence implies the AFS is impacting the environmental variables, not the other

way around which is what I think you meant.

Line 382: "Evaporation" looks to be accidently bolded.

Line 407: "compared" may be replaced with "in relation"

Line 451: The word "successfully" appears out of place as it is making a suggestion to the

reader's interpretation and could be dropped from the sentence.

In summary I found this article to be a novel and powerful use of multivariate GIS

analysis. I believe the findings are strong and honest. Figures including the maps are

appropriate and readable. Thank you for considering my comments.

[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: No

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: RE: Assessing the Environmental Factors Affecting the Sustainability of Ayni Falaj System

This manuscript is well prepared and of high quality. In this article, the order of presenting the content is well respected and innovative. Therefore, I consider this manuscript suitable for acceptance for publication in the journal. However, before acceptance, minor revisions are required as follows:

1- It is better to separate the section related to the study area in the materials and methods section and put it before the materials and methods section.

2- It is better to edit the text accurately by an English speaker.

Reviewer #2: The article Assessing the Environmental Factors Affecting the Sustainability of Ayni Falaj

System has been read in its entirety by this reviewer and highlighted areas indicate the

locations of my following comments. It is important to note that my specialty is in multivariate

GIS as it pertains to ecology, however I am very familiar with the software and process

described in this paper as I use them on a regular basis. I have found its use of GIS processes

appropriate, innovative, and enlightening. Please see the following comments as suggestions to

improve the article's readability and specificity.

Comments:

Lines 38 - 40: These two sentences appear redundant and could be shortened to a single

sentence.

Line 49: The situation described does not have to be specific to a country and "within the

country" could be dropped.

Line 53(1): "lives" could be replaced with "way of life"

Line 53(2): "urbanization and" falls under the category of changes to land use and could be

dropped from the sentence.

Line 56: "this" may be dropped from the sentence.

Line 58: "confronts" feels inappropriate may be replaced with "faces".

Line 189: This sentence implies the AFS is impacting the environmental variables, not the other

way around which is what I think you meant.

Line 382: "Evaporation" looks to be accidently bolded.

Line 407: "compared" may be replaced with "in relation"

Line 451: The word "successfully" appears out of place as it is making a suggestion to the

reader's interpretation and could be dropped from the sentence.

In summary I found this article to be a novel and powerful use of multivariate GIS

analysis. I believe the findings are strong and honest. Figures including the maps are

appropriate and readable. Thank you for considering my comments.

**********

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: Kevin Maxwell Lester

**********

[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: PONE-D-23-30564_reviewerLESTER.pdf
Revision 1

Reviewer # 1

RE: Assessing the Environmental Factors Affecting the Sustainability of Ayni Falaj System

This manuscript is well prepared and of high quality. In this article, the order of presenting the content is well respected and innovative. Therefore, I consider this manuscript suitable for acceptance for publication in the journal. However, before acceptance, minor revisions are required as follows:

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you so much for your thorough and constructive feedback on our manuscript. We are thrilled to get your favorable feedback and appreciate your acknowledgment of the high quality and innovative nature of our work. We carefully read your proposed improvements and agree that modest changes are required to improve the manuscript before it is accepted for publication. We are committed to responding to each of your comments and ensuring that the final version matches the journal's high standards. We will make the necessary adjustments as soon as possible and provide a full answer to each of your comments in the updated manuscript. We feel that these modifications will improve the overall clarity and coherence of our work.

1- It is better to separate the section related to the study area in the materials and methods section and put it before the materials and methods section.

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you for your valuable feedback, the study area section has been separated from the materials and method section. Therefore, the study area section has been moved and put it before the materials and method section. Please see line 99 in the revised manuscript.

2- It is better to edit the text accurately by an English speaker.

Thank you for your insightful feedback. We handled the complaint about accurate language editing by having the document thoroughly examined and revised by a native English speaker. We believe that this step has substantially improved the text's precision and clarity.

Reviewer 2

The article Assessing the Environmental Factors Affecting the Sustainability of Ayni Falaj System has been read in its entirety by this reviewer and highlighted areas indicate the locations of my following comments. It is important to note that my specialty is in multivariate GIS as it pertains to ecology, however I am very familiar with the software and process described in this paper as I use them on a regular basis. I have found its use of GIS processes appropriate, innovative, and enlightening. Please see the following comments as suggestions to improve the article's readability and specificity.

Dear Kevin Lester,

Thank you for dedicating your time to thoroughly review our article, "Assessing the Environmental Factors Affecting the Sustainability of Ayni Falaj System." We appreciate your positive remarks regarding the use of GIS processes, finding them appropriate, innovative, and enlightening. We welcome your suggestions to enhance the article's readability and specificity. Your expertise in multivariate GIS, particularly in relation to ecology, is invaluable, and we are eager to incorporate your insights. Please proceed with your comments, and we will carefully consider and implement the suggested improvements. We sincerely appreciate your constructive feedback and look forward to further refining our manuscript based on your recommendations.

Comments:

Lines 38 - 40: These two sentences appear redundant and could be shortened to a single

sentence.

In response to your suggestion regarding lines 38-40, we have revised the manuscript accordingly. The two sentences have been condensed into a single, more concise statement while maintaining clarity and preserving the intended information. Please line 38- 39 in the revised manuscript.

Line 49: The situation described does not have to be specific to a country and "within the

country" could be dropped.

Thank you for your feedback. Words "within the country" have been removed. Please see the revised manuscript, line 48.

Line 53(1): "lives" could be replaced with "way of life"

Thank you so much for your feedback. Word “lives” has been replaced with “way of life”. See line 51 in the revised manuscript.

Line 53(2): "urbanization and" falls under the category of changes to land use and could be

dropped from the sentence.

Thank you for your insightful comment. We appreciate your suggestion to improve the sentence. After careful consideration, we agree that "urbanization and" falls under the broader category of "changes in land use" and can be omitted for conciseness. The revised sentence will now read: "Another problem that this system faces in Oman is changes in land use." We believe this modification strengthens the clarity and focus of the statement. Your feedback has been valuable, and we are grateful for your input. Please see lines 51-52 in the revised manuscript.

Line 56: "this" may be dropped from the sentence.

Done. Please see line 55 in the revised manuscript.

Line 58: "confronts" feels inappropriate may be replaced with "faces".

Done. Please see line 57 in the revised manuscript.

Line 189: This sentence implies the AFS is impacting the environmental variables, not the other way around which is what I think you meant.

Thank you so much. The sentence has been corrected in the revised manuscript. Please see line 189 in the revised manuscript.

Line 382: "Evaporation" looks to be accidently bolded.

Done. Please see line 381 in the revised manuscript.

Line 407: "compared" may be replaced with "in relation"

Done. Please see line 406 in the revised manuscript.

Line 451: The word "successfully" appears out of place as it is making a suggestion to the reader's interpretation and could be dropped from the sentence.

Done. Please see line 450 in the revised manuscript.

In summary I found this article to be a novel and powerful use of multivariate GIS analysis. I believe the findings are strong and honest. Figures including the maps are appropriate and readable. Thank you for considering my comments.

Dear Kevin Lester,

Thank you for taking the time to read and comment on our article. We truly appreciate your favorable feedback and are thrilled that you found our use of multivariate GIS analysis to be new and powerful. Your recognition of the intensity and sincerity of our results is heartening since it emphasizes the time and effort we put into performing a thorough and transparent analysis. We are also glad that you found our figures, including maps, to be relevant and legible. We prioritize clarity and accessibility in visual representations, and we are pleased to learn that our efforts have been successful. We appreciate your time and thought in assessing our work. Your good feedback validates our research efforts, and we are dedicated to maintaining the quality and integrity of our work in future ventures. Thank you for your constructive feedback and support once more.

Attachments
Attachment
Submitted filename: Responce to Reviwers comments.docx
Decision Letter - Abdulkader Murad, Editor

Assessing the Environmental Factors Affecting the Sustainability of Ayni Falaj System

PONE-D-23-30564R1

Dear Dr. Alkindi,

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,

Abdulkader Murad, Ph.D

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

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

Reviewer #3: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #3: (No Response)

**********

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

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #3: Dear author,

I have some optional suggestions to improve your final version of the manuscript:

Please check the caption of Figure 4, because you did not mention to map b.

The content in Figure 5 appears to be similar. Make sure to check it before sending the final edition.

You also used dried and deceased words in the text. Verify which one is correct.

I believe that the paper can be improved in terms of English writing and grammar.

Thank you

**********

 

**********

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 .