PONE-D-23-34333Human-common hippopotamus (Hippopotamus amphibius)-conflict in the Dhidhessa Wildlife Sanctuary and its surrounding, Southwestern EthiopiaPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Tefera,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. Please accept my apology for the length of time it took to be able to reach a decision on this manuscript.  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.

The authors present findings from a human-hippo conflict study that has the potential to provide a valuable contribution to the literature. The authors provide results from descriptive statistical analyses, using programs for analysis that are not broadly known making it more important for the authors to cite the sources of these programs. Reviewer #2 provided suggestions for introducing more analytical rigor. There are straightforward multivariate approaches that can allow the authors to more clearly understand the factors that influence attitudes. However, the addition of multivariate approaches should not come at the expense of accuracy; the authors would need to their comfort level with the assumptions and limitations of any new analysis conducted, especially with the use of point-and-click statistics programs. Reviewer #2 provides additional feedback that will be helpful when revising your manuscript. Please note that submission of a revised manuscript addressing reviewer comments does not guarantee acceptance. The journal office looked into the claims from Reviewer #1 and did not find evidence of plagiarism; however, if there are similar publications, please cite appropriately in the manuscript. Please ensure that your decision is justified on PLOS ONE’s publication criteria and not, for example, on novelty or perceived impact.

For Lab, Study and Registered Report Protocols: These article types are not expected to include results but may include pilot data. 

==============================

Please submit your revised manuscript by Apr 04 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,

Stephanie S. Romanach, 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. We suggest you thoroughly copyedit your manuscript for language usage, spelling, and grammar. If you do not know anyone who can help you do this, you may wish to consider employing a professional scientific editing service.  

Whilst you may use any professional scientific editing service of your choice, PLOS has partnered with both American Journal Experts (AJE) and Editage to provide discounted services to PLOS authors. Both organizations have experience helping authors meet PLOS guidelines and can provide language editing, translation, manuscript formatting, and figure formatting to ensure your manuscript meets our submission guidelines. To take advantage of our partnership with AJE, visit the AJE website (http://learn.aje.com/plos/) for a 15% discount off AJE services. To take advantage of our partnership with Editage, visit the Editage website (www.editage.com) and enter referral code PLOSEDIT for a 15% discount off Editage services.  If the PLOS editorial team finds any language issues in text that either AJE or Editage has edited, the service provider will re-edit the text for free.

Upon resubmission, please provide the following: 

● The name of the colleague or the details of the professional service that edited your manuscript

● A copy of your manuscript showing your changes by either highlighting them or using track changes (uploaded as a *supporting information* file)

● A clean copy of the edited manuscript (uploaded as the new *manuscript* file)

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. In the online submission form, you indicated that the data used in this study are available by the authors upon reasonable request

All PLOS journals now require all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript to be freely available to other researchers, either 1. In a public repository, 2. Within the manuscript itself, or 3. Uploaded as supplementary information.

This policy applies to all data except where public deposition would breach compliance with the protocol approved by your research ethics board. If your data cannot be made publicly available for ethical or legal reasons (e.g., public availability would compromise patient privacy), please explain your reasons on resubmission and your exemption request will be escalated for approval.

5. We note that Figures 1 and 2 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 and 2 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/

6. Please include captions for your Supporting Information files at the end of your manuscript, and update any in-text citations to match accordingly. Please see our Supporting Information guidelines for more information: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/supporting-information. 

[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: No

Reviewer #2: Partly

**********

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

Reviewer #1: No

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: 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: The manuscrbite is not writenn well. The data collection method and analysis are not good and scientific. The findings are not presented properly. Majority of the statments are copied from someones paper.

Reviewer #2: Main Comments:

Here, the authors investigate the extent of human-hippo conflict and the perception that local inhabitants have about the conflict between hippos and people in the Dhidhesa Wildlife Sanctuary, and what this conflict means for hippo conservation in the area. The authors make use of questionnaire surveys, focus group discussions and key informant interviews as their primary data source for the study. These results have the potential to provide key baseline information on human-hippo conflict, which has generally been understudied. Overall, I enjoyed reading the paper which could make an important contribution to the field. However, I did note several concerns during the paper review process.

While the paper covers an important and interesting topic, the writing style, including grammar, sentence construction and sentence linking, requires improvement. It was a challenge at times to assess the manuscripts content because of this. I suggest a careful read through and gleaning of the article, and recommend obtaining the assistance of a scientific editorial service to improve the manuscripts readability. I have tried where possible to provide some grammatical feedback, but I have not been able to include all my notes and observations.

Specific comments:

Most of the data is presented in the form of descriptive statistics, which is to be expected for a questionnaire-type study. However, I do think the authors could introduce a more rigorous analytical routine to provide adequate support for the conclusions made in the discussion.

Some of the figures are incorrectly referenced in the main text. This needs to be inspected and corrected throughout the manuscript. What is the reasoning for including Figures versus Plates? The authors should also refrain from stretching the images. Images could be grouped into a single figure labelled a-e (or however many figures there are) that occur alongside each other (double column) on a single page.

Line 1: Consider replacing with “Human-hippo (Hippopotamus amphibius) conflict...”

Line 30: What about rhinos? I would rephrase to say "…one of the most endangered megaherbivores in Africa…"

Line 67: “…listed as vulnerable…” instead of “tagged vulnerable”

Line 88-92: This paragraph requires rewording; it is a challenge to decipher what the authors are trying to say.

Line 100-117: The “Ethical statement” should not be the first paragraph of the Methods Section. This should either come later in the methods or at the very end of the manuscript, towards the acknowledgements section. There also appears to be another “Methods” section below “Materials and Methods” – try be more specific e.g., Study Design or Survey Approach

Line 133-135: Not clear whether the reserve was designated for its high diversity or large hippo populations? This needs to be made clearer.

Line 142: “…human-dominated ecosystem…” rather than “…human ecosystem…”

Line 157: “Focus group discussions” do not need to be abbreviated if it is only mentioned a handful of times in the manuscript, but if it is abbreviated, then be sure to abbreviate as FDG when this is first used, and then use the abbreviation somewhere in the main text.

Line 159: “…total HUMAN population…”? Unclear what population the authors are referring to.

Line 162-164: remove, “…for the randomization…” as the randomization idea is mentioned again in the same sentence

Line 165: It would be helpful to briefly describe what a semi-structured questionnaire is?

Line 168: “…utilized in the area…” rather than “…experienced…”

Line 170: What is the Kobo Toolbox? This needs to be explained after is introduced to the reader. Include a sentence of what this is and why it was used.

Line 183: Describe which program was used to conduct the analysis only at the end of the paragraph.

Line 184-186: Alternatively, “…To determine the effect of distance, village and perception on HHC…” etc.

Line 192: 43% is not “most”. Alternatively, “Less than half of the community have a primary level of education (43%).”?

Line 252-273: While this paragraph is insightful, it needs to be reworded to be less speculative. The authors could state that “…of the people interviewed, there was a strong trend of increased conflict from 2014, which so happens to coincide with encroachment onto their habitat…”. Or whatever makes most sense from the data available.

Line 303: Refrain from using the word “proved” and instead use “…we show…” or “…our data show…”

Line 304-307: An insightful finding from the study, but again it needs to be re-written and re-worded to make it understandable.

Line 319-320: Do you mean that the population size of hippos in the DWS is higher than reported elsewhere in Africa?

Line 336: An important reference to be included here and elsewhere in the manuscript: Van Houdt, S. & Traill, L.W. (2022). A synthesis of human conflict with an African megaherbivore; the common hippopotamus. Frontiers in Conservation Science 3, 954722.

Line 372-376: Which is a strong motivating factor to improve access to education for young woman in the community?

Line 424: Reference: Voysey et al (2023). Are hippos Africa’s most influential megaherbivore? A review of ecosystem engineering by the semi-aquatic common hippopotamus. Biological Reviews

Table 1: It is unclear what “With Farms” and “Without Farms” means here? Describe what this means in the table heading.

Figure 4: Does this figure describe to what extent the respondents are in support of hippo conservation? It is not perfectly clear that this is indeed the case.

**********

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.

PONE-D-23-34333R1Human- common hippo (Hippopotamus amphibius)-conflict in the Dhidhessa Wildlife Sanctuary and its surrounding, Southwestern EthiopiaPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Tefera,

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. 

Some of the review comments were not addressed in your response. For example, I see no response to the reviewer suggestion for a more rigorous and analytical approach nor about the figure stretching. I can see where you did and did not make edits but in the future you should respond to all reviewer comments. 

Some additional edits:

L 185 and 186 Kebele should be capitalized 

L 184 Woreda should also be capitalized 

L 209 change to “analyze”

L 215 What is text analysis?, Please describe 

L 236 do you mean trampled?

L 245 what percent loss is this? Or out of how many total cattle in the area?

L 257 remove “of responses”

L 260 remove “from time to time”, suggested revision to “over time”.

L 275 and other planes (e.g., L 346) “Hippo” should not be capitalized. Please change throughout 

L 281 change “better” to “more”

L 298 do you mean “three decades ago”?

L 351 river should be lower case, same on L 367

L 361 crop names should be lower case

L 426 age 5? The 5 may need to be removed or edited 

Please submit your revised manuscript by May 31 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,

Stephanie S. Romanach, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

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.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

[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.

Human- common hippo (Hippopotamus amphibius)-conflict in the Dhidhessa Wildlife Sanctuary and its surrounding, Southwestern Ethiopia

PONE-D-23-34333R2

Dear Dr. Tefera,

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,

Stephanie S. Romanach, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments: