Peer Review History

Original SubmissionDecember 29, 2023
Decision Letter - Muhammad Nasir Khan, Editor

PONE-D-23-44061Using a Theory-Driven Agent-Based Model to Explain Rural Broadband Adoption DynamicsPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Canfield,

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 Mar 22 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,

Muhammad Nasir Khan, PhD

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.

[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: “Using a Theory-Driven Agent-Based Model to Explain Rural Broadband Adoption Dynamics”

First and foremost, I suggest that you rephrase your full title to “Analysis of Rural Broadband Adoption Dynamics: A Theory-Driven Agent-Based Model.”

Referring to the introduction section, you may use questions to state your research question, or to clarify an issue that requires future research. Normally, however, you should avoid using questions in your formal or academic writing.

Do not use “i)” within paragraphs. Instead, use discourse markers. Similarly, the discussion section includes “a)” etc. in-text. Please note that these are used as bullets. Use discourse markers like “one, secondly, moreover” only.

In the introduction section, there are many statements that do not have a reference. Make sure that you reference every statement properly. For example, the paragraph where you have talked about the pandemic has zero in-text citations.

As per PLOS guidelines, the introduction section must include a brief review of the key literature. I found that in the start of the “Modelling Broadband Adoption” section.

It is imperative to include the GitHub repository URL in references instead of in the main text. Simply include the author and year of publication as in-text citation. The URL goes in the corresponding reference list entry.

Kindly rephrase figure 1 title as per the PLOS guidelines. Include the description as part of the legend (instead of the title). Same case in figures 3, 4, and 6.

Lastly, for clarity purpose, separate the discussion and conclusion sections. Alternatively, make sub-sections in the mixed section.

All in all, this is a very good paper and has considerable potential to get published. Good luck!

Reviewer #2: 1. Rewrite the abstract to reflect the work.

2. The introduction is lack of research gap and questions.

3. I the model is design by authors?

4. What re the contributions?

5. What type of software or technology are used for the implementation of model?

6. The author should compare the results with literature.

**********

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: Yes: Bilal Aftab

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

Dr. Khan,

Thank you for the opportunity to revise our manuscript. The feedback from the reviewers has greatly improved this work. In particular, we have substantially revised the introduction and discussion to better frame and contextualize our findings. In addition, we have reviewed the manuscript for grammatical errors and identified opportunities to clarify the language.

Reviewer 1

Comment R1.1. First and foremost, I suggest that you rephrase your full title to “Analysis of Rural Broadband Adoption Dynamics: A Theory-Driven Agent-Based Model.”

Response R1.1. Thank you for the suggestion - we have revised the title.

Comment R1.2. Referring to the introduction section, you may use questions to state your research question, or to clarify an issue that requires future research. Normally, however, you should avoid using questions in your formal or academic writing.

Response R1.2. We have removed the rhetorical questions from the introduction. Instead, we now pose research questions.

Comment R1.3. Do not use “i)” within paragraphs. Instead, use discourse markers. Similarly, the discussion section includes “a)” etc. in-text. Please note that these are used as bullets. Use discourse markers like “one, secondly, moreover” only.

Response R1.3. We have revised the manuscript to use discourse markers.

Comment R1.4. In the introduction section, there are many statements that do not have a reference. Make sure that you reference every statement properly. For example, the paragraph where you have talked about the pandemic has zero in-text citations.

Response R1.4. We have added 13 citations to the introduction to support our statements and revised the text to improve clarity.

Comment R1.5. As per PLOS guidelines, the introduction section must include a brief review of the key literature. I found that in the start of the “Modelling Broadband Adoption” section.

Response R1.5. We have revised the structure of the manuscript to make the literature review a subsection in the Introduction, rather than a separate section.

Comment R1.6. It is imperative to include the GitHub repository URL in references instead of in the main text. Simply include the author and year of publication as in-text citation. The URL goes in the corresponding reference list entry.

Response R1.6. We have moved the GitHub URL to a citation.

Comment R1.7. Kindly rephrase figure 1 title as per the PLOS guidelines. Include the description as part of the legend (instead of the title). Same case in figures 3, 4, and 6.

Response R1.7. We have revised the captions to separate the title and legend.

Comment R1.8. Lastly, for clarity purpose, separate the discussion and conclusion sections. Alternatively, make sub-sections in the mixed section.

Response R1.8. We have separated the Discussion and Conclusion sections.

Comment R1.9. All in all, this is a very good paper and has considerable potential to get published. Good luck!

Response R1.9. Thank you for your thoughtful comments!

Reviewer 2

Comment R2.1. Rewrite the abstract to reflect the work.

Response R2.1. Thank you for your thoughtful comments! We have revised the abstract to better reflect the results and improve the clarity of the language.

Comment R2.2. The introduction is lack of research gap and questions.

Response R2.2. We have added a paragraph to the introduction to highlight the research questions and research gap.

“This research aims to address two primary research questions:

1. Can a theory-based simulation capture broadband adoption dynamics in served and unserved communities?

2. How do attributes of the broadband technology and population influence adoption dynamics?

The primary contribution of this work is in demonstrating an approach for scaling modeling efforts for broadband adoption in data poor contexts. In the broadband context specifically, this requires modeling market competition, social network effects, digital literacy, and affordability.”

Comment R2.3. I the model is design by authors?

Response R2.3. Yes, the model is designed and implemented by the authors.

Comment R2.4. What re the contributions?

Response R2.4. The primary contribution of this work is in demonstrating an approach for scaling modeling efforts for broadband adoption in data poor contexts. We have added this context to the introduction.

Comment R2.5. What type of software or technology are used for the implementation of model?

Response R2.5. The model is implemented in NetLogo. This is reported in the Model overview section.

Comment R2.6. The author should compare the results with literature.

Response R2.6. We have revised the discussion section by adding additional citations to contextualize our results.

Attachments
Attachment
Submitted filename: response-to-reviewers_ABM.docx
Decision Letter - Muhammad Nasir Khan, Editor

Analysis of Rural Broadband Adoption Dynamics: A Theory-Driven Agent-Based Model

PONE-D-23-44061R1

Dear Dr. Canfield,

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 will be generated when your article is formally accepted. Please note, if your institution has a publishing partnership with PLOS and your article meets the relevant criteria, all or part of your publication costs will be covered. Please make sure your user information is up-to-date by logging into Editorial Manager at Editorial Manager® and clicking the ‘Update My Information' link at the top of the page. If you have any questions relating to publication charges, 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,

Muhammad Nasir Khan, PhD

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Formally Accepted
Acceptance Letter - Muhammad Nasir Khan, Editor

PONE-D-23-44061R1

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Canfield,

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

Dr. Muhammad Nasir Khan

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 .