Ecological niche measurement and high-quality development of "the Belt and Road" core area

Hang Zhang; Nurguli Abdusuli

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0302550

Peer Review History

Original SubmissionJanuary 11, 2024
26 Feb 2024 Decision Letter - Tunira Bhadauria, Editor PONE-D-24-01398Ecological Niche Measurement and High-quality Development of "the Belt and Road" Core AreaPLOS ONE Dear Dr. Zhang, 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 Apr 11 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, Tunira Bhadauria, 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. Thank you for stating the following financial disclosure: “The National Social Science Fund of China: Study on the Cultural Coexistence Paradigm of Embeddedness Multi-ethnicof Villages in the Context of "Culture Moistening Xinjiang", grant number 22BMZ123.” 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. 3. 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 4. We notice that your supplementary figures are uploaded with the file type 'Figure'. Please amend the file type to 'Supporting Information'. Please ensure that each Supporting Information file has a legend listed in the manuscript after the references list. [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: No 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: Greetings! This manuscript introduces the ecological niche theory to regional development assessment and conducts a study using Xinjiang (South Xinjiang), one of the core regions of the Belt and Road, as the study area. The results are significant for the coordinated development of the South Xinjiang, as well as for the better implementation of the Belt and Road Initiative. However, there are some problems that required systematic revision before the manuscript accepted. (1) Title appropriate? In terms of content, the article takes the South Xinjiang as the study area, while the title is the Belt and Road Core Area. Is the case area typical enough to represent the Belt and Road Core Area? (2) Abstract: inconsistent font size. (3) Introduction: The first paragraph lacks support from relevant literature. (4) Introduction: In the first paragraph, revised "One Belt, One Road" initiative to the Belt and Road Initiative. (5) Methods: Are the 26 indicators selected in Table1 tested for covariance? (6) Conclusion: Too long, streamlining is required. (7) Recommendation section (4.2): Since this article does not analyze the causes of interregional development disparities, the section is general and unfocused. It is recommended that this section be revised. Reviewer #2: The author applies niche theory to the evaluation of high-quality development of regional economy. From the theoretical level, the application, nesting and transfer of niche concept are relatively smooth, and the theoretical explanation is clear. From the perspective of article writing, the author 's writing logic is more rigorous, the expression is clear, and the words are rigorous and easy to understand. In general, the quality of the article is high, but there are still some problems, and it is recommended to modify it slightly. The specific questions are as follows : 1.The research results of the abstract need to be expressed in detail, and the author 's description is too brief. For example, in what range does the width value represent which areas in southern Xinjiang show this structural feature ? There are differences in the degree of overlap, what kind of difference, whether it can be quantified ? Suggested modification 2.In the third paragraph of the introduction, the concept of niche is introduced here, but the application of niche in high-quality economic development has made little progress, and the direct transition to the evaluation of economic development with niche theory requires an entry point. 3.In the second part, the first part of the materials and methods : Niche theory. This part can also be placed in the research progress, and it is not suitable for materials and methods. It does not belong to the material, and the niche theory does not belong to the method. Here is also the definition and connotation of the niche. 4.In the discussion and conclusion part, we should add some discussion methods and the accuracy of the results. 5.References should be properly updated, plus some recent 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: 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.0302550.r001
Revision 1
18 Mar 2024 Author Response We gratefully thank the editor and all reviewers for their time spend making their constructive remarks and useful suggestions, which has significantly raised the quality of the manuscript and has enable us to improve the manuscript. Each suggested revision and comment, brought forward by the reviewers was accurately considered. Below the comments of the reviewers are response point by point and the revisions are indicated. Reviewer 1 Comment 1：Title appropriate? In terms of content, the article takes the South Xinjiang as the study area, while the title is the Belt and Road Core Area. Is the case area typical enough to represent the Belt and Road Core Area? The title was decided by consensus among the authors and is in line with current research. The establishment of the Belt and Road Core Area fulfills three necessary conditions: obvious geographical advantages, superior resource endowment and insufficient economic development. First of all, South Xinjiang is located in China's western border, in the "Belt and Road" along the strategic corridor and open gateway for the interaction of countries, with Khunjerab, Turgat, Пункт пропус and other national first-class ports, geographical advantages and location advantages are very obvious, and can be done with other countries to achieve direct interconnection and interaction is the "Belt and Road" all resources, factors, exchange and interaction must pass through the gateway. "Belt and Road" all resources, factors, exchange and interaction must pass through the gateway. Secondly, the Southern Xinjiang has extensive ties with Central Asia and unique advantages in terms of language, religion, and economic influence. It has the necessary conditions for building the core area in terms of infrastructure, economic and trade cooperation, and humanistic exchanges. Finally, the economy of the Southern Xinjiang exhibits imbalances and inadequacies. There is a clear need for improvement in economic development, Southern Xinjiang could establish a more common language and cooperation basis with countries along the “Belt and Road”. Based on the above, the Southern Xinjiang shares both the advantages and disadvantages of the core regions of the Belt and Road. This makes it a typical representative of the core regions of the Belt and Road. Comment 2: Abstract: inconsistent font size. Changed in the text. Comment 3: Introduction: The first paragraph lacks support from relevant literature. The introduction's first paragraph provides a concise overview of the Southern Xinjiang's current status. Research on the Belt and Road Core Area is primarily conducted at a macro or provincial level, with limited focus on specific regions. There is limited literature available on the current state of development of Southern Xinjiang. However, the first paragraph of the introduction is not unfounded. It accurately reflects the strengths, weaknesses, and current state of development of the region, as taken from policy documents of local governments in China. The references for these documents are included in the cited literature section. Comment 4: Introduction: In the first paragraph, revised "One Belt, One Road" initiative to the Belt and Road Initiative. Changed in the text. Comment 5: Methods: Are the 26 indicators selected in Table1 tested for covariance? Based on the significance of covariance and current research on the evaluation of economic ecological niches, we believe that testing for covariance of the indicators in Table 1 is unnecessary. In this paper, we calculated the economic ecological niche as a quantitative result by synthesizing 26 variables. As the dependent variable is unobservable, the covariance test is not applicable for this study. Furthermore, in the existing literature on economic ecological niches, the indicator evaluation system is often not tested for covariance. Comment 6: Conclusion: Too long, streamlining is required. The data analyses and discussions have been moved from the conclusions to section Results and discussion (3) to improve clarity and conciseness. Comment 7: Recommendation section (4.2): Since this article does not analyze the causes of interregional development disparities, the section is general and unfocused. It is recommended that this section be revised. In sections 3.1 and 3.2, we presented the results of each economic development subsystem to support our recommendations. We also revised the recommendations according to the strengths and weaknesses of the local economic development, ensuring alignment with the development goals of each region. Reviewer 2 Comment 1: The research results of the abstract need to be expressed in detail, and the author 's description is too brief. For example, in what range does the width value represent which areas in southern Xinjiang show this structural feature ? There are differences in the degree of overlap, what kind of difference, whether it can be quantified ? Suggested modification. The conclusions in the summary section were expanded based on modifications made to the results in the conclusions section. This was achieved by adding the hierarchical level of ecological width or overlap and characteristics to provide a more comprehensive analysis. Comment 2: In the third paragraph of the introduction, the concept of niche is introduced here, but the application of niche in high-quality economic development has made little progress, and the direct transition to the evaluation of economic development with niche theory requires an entry point. The last paragraph of the introduction now begins with a section that introduces the advantages and uniqueness of using ecological niche theory to study economic development. This addition improves the logical structure of the text. Comment 3: In the second part, the first part of the materials and methods : Niche theory. This part can also be placed in the research progress, and it is not suitable for materials and methods. It does not belong to the material, and the niche theory does not belong to the method. Here is also the definition and connotation of the niche. The ecological niche theory section of materials and methods was divided into two parts. The first part covers the theoretical description and is placed after the ecological niche definition and connotation in the third paragraph of the introduction. The second part includes only the ecological niche width model and the ecological niche overlap model, which are still part of the research methodology and are retained in section 2.1. Comment 4: In the discussion and conclusion part, we should add some discussion methods and the accuracy of the results. The comments from multiple reviewers were consolidated, and as a result, the data analyses and discussion were relocated from the conclusion to section 3 to enhance the conclusion's clarity and conciseness. Comment 5: References should be properly updated, plus some recent literature. The article cites literature from the last five years (2020-2024), which accounts for approximately 75% of the total literature. To increase this percentage to over 80%, a few additional literature were included. Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.doc https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0302550.r002
8 Apr 2024 Decision Letter - Tunira Bhadauria, Editor Ecological Niche Measurement and High-quality Development of "the Belt and Road" Core Area PONE-D-24-01398R1 Dear Dr. Zhang 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, Tunira Bhadauria, Ph.D. Academic Editor PLOS ONE Additional Editor Comments (optional): Reviewers' comments: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0302550.r003
Formally Accepted
30 Apr 2024 Acceptance Letter - Tunira Bhadauria, Editor PONE-D-24-01398R1 PLOS ONE Dear Dr. Zhang, 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. Tunira Bhadauria Academic Editor PLOS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0302550.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 .