The quantity and composition of household food waste: Implications for policy

Drajat Martianto; Rian Diana; Yayuk Farida Baliwati; Dadang Sukandar; Agung Hendriadi

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0305087

Peer Review History

Original SubmissionFebruary 5, 2024
18 Mar 2024 Decision Letter - Fabien MUHIRWA, Editor PONE-D-24-03754The quantity and composition of household food waste: implications for policyPLOS ONE Dear Dr. Diana, 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 May 02 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, Fabien MUHIRWA 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 in the Acknowledgments Section of your manuscript: “The authors thank the Neys-van Hoogstraten Foundation and IPB University [Rian Diana, grant numbers: 01 /NHF-IPB I 2022] for funding this study. The funders did not involve in the study design, data collection, data analysis and preparation of the manuscript or decision to publish.” We note that you have provided funding information that is currently declared in your Funding Statement. However, funding information should not appear in the Acknowledgments section or other areas of your manuscript. We will only publish funding information present in the Funding Statement section of the online submission form. Please remove any funding-related text from the manuscript and let us know how you would like to update your Funding Statement. Currently, your Funding Statement reads as follows: “The authors thank the Neys-van Hoogstraten Foundation and IPB University [Rian Diana, grant numbers: 01 /NHF-IPB I 2022] for funding this study. The funders did not involve in the study design, data collection, data analysis and preparation of the manuscript or decision to publish.” Please include your amended statements within your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf. 3. We note that you have indicated that there are restrictions to data sharing for this study. PLOS only allows data to be available upon request if there are legal or ethical restrictions on sharing data publicly. For more information on unacceptable data access restrictions, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-unacceptable-data-access-restrictions. Before we proceed with your manuscript, please address the following prompts: a) If there are ethical or legal restrictions on sharing a de-identified data set, please explain them in detail (e.g., data contain potentially identifying or sensitive patient information, data are owned by a third-party organization, etc.) and who has imposed them (e.g., a Research Ethics Committee or Institutional Review Board, etc.). Please also provide contact information for a data access committee, ethics committee, or other institutional body to which data requests may be sent. b) If there are no restrictions, please upload the minimal anonymized data set necessary to replicate your study findings to a stable, public repository and provide us with the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers. For a list of recommended repositories, please see https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/recommended-repositories. You also have the option of uploading the data as Supporting Information files, but we would recommend depositing data directly to a data repository if possible. We will update your Data Availability statement on your behalf to reflect the information you provide. Additional Editor Comments: Dear Authors, Congratulations on the completion of this insightful manuscript, please try to revise the discussion section a bit. And pay close attention to the reviewers' 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: Partly Reviewer #3: Yes ******** 2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes Reviewer #3: 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 Reviewer #3: 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 Reviewer #3: 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: This study focuses on analyzing the differences in the amount, types, and causes of household food waste between urban and rural areas. It was conducted in Bogor Regency, Indonesia, and involved 215 households. The researchers used waste compositional analysis for food and diaries for beverages to assess household food waste. However, it could benefit from more detailed explanations of the methodology, a deeper analysis of findings, and a more comprehensive presentation to provide a clearer picture of the research. Some of the issues which needs to be addressed before further process are the following: Abstract: 1. This abstract need revision: Background and Gap (reason you are conducting this study in this area), are the main missing parts in this abstract. Introduction: 2. The citation markers (e.g., "(1)", "(2-6)") disrupt the flow of the text and could be incorporated more smoothly. Please use a proper citation style. 3. The transition between discussing global food waste and focusing on Indonesia could be smoother. Consider using transitional phrases to connect these sections more effectively. 4. line 50, you said “Moreover, studies on FW in middle-income countries, particularly Southeast Asia, are limited.” However, you didn’t acknowledge the limitations of existing research. It's important to acknowledge the limitations of existing research, particularly the lack of detailed data on food waste in Indonesia. This could help set the stage for the current study and emphasize its importance. You didn’t your study area and made all data underlying the findings in your manuscript fully available. Please do it. Methodology: 5. While the study mentions the use of multistage random sampling, it does not elaborate on the specific details of how households were selected within each stage. 6. This approach introduces inconsistencies, potentially affecting data reliability. The diary method has limitations like forgetfulness and inaccurate estimations. I suggest to improve measurement techniques, you implement “waste audits”, where trained personnel sort and weigh household waste samples over an extended period. You can also use “Smart sensor technology”. This Smart sensor integrated into trash bins to automatically quantify and categorize waste, providing real-time data collection without relying on self-reporting. 7. The study mentions obtaining written informed consent from participants and approval from the Human Research Ethics Committee. However, it does not provide details on how privacy and confidentiality were ensured, especially given the sensitive nature of waste-related data. 8. The adaptation of the method from the National Zero Waste Council of Canada introduces a potential bias if the waste generation patterns and waste management practices in Indonesia differ significantly from those in Canada. This raises questions about the validity and applicability of the methodology to the local context. Result: 9. Why can’t you present your result by figures? The figures presented in the comparison study could provide valuable insights into the differences and similarities between the urban and rural contexts. 10. Line 109. While statistical significance (p<0.001) is mentioned, it would be beneficial to provide confidence intervals or other measures of uncertainty to qualify the findings and indicate the robustness of the observed differences between urban and rural areas. 11. Line 135. Reasons for throwing away food: Better by comparison: “why do urban areas generate more FW per capita? Are there specific consumption patterns, food distribution systems, or waste management practices that contribute to this disparity?” Discussion: 12. The discussion does not provide a clear context for the study or its significance. It merely states the findings without explaining why the study was conducted or what implications these findings might have. It lacks depth in analysis and fails to offer comprehensive solutions to address the complex issue of food waste. 13. please cite your results (tables, figures) in this part Conclusion: 14. This conclusion oversimplifies the complexities of FW generation and overlooks the importance of context-specific factors in determining effective prevention and reduction strategies. A more nuanced analysis taking into account the unique characteristics of each setting would provide a stronger foundation for developing targeted interventions to address FW in both urban and rural areas. Reviewer #2: Dear author/s, the topic of the manuscript is interesting, however there a few aspects that should be improved: 1. The research questions are missing, please add them in order to emphasize the originality of the manuscript. 2. So far the research instruments to determinate the reasons for food waste not presented. Whom fulfill it? 3. Which is the novelty of the research? What gap in the existing literature this study fills? 4. The discussion part could be improved by comparing your results with other similar researches. 5. Which are the limitations of the study? What about future research direction and managerial implications of the study? Reviewer #3: I appreciate the work done by the authors. The manuscript provides a wealth of information and data demonstrating the FW in the study area. Through this literature, readers can learn about FW in Indian context, providing useful references and insights for practice and research in the field of FW management. For the above reasons, this manuscript is agreed for publication. However, there are some comments the authors have to address before the publication (See highlighted comments in the paper). ****** 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: Dr. Vincent NZABARINDA Reviewer #2: No Reviewer #3: Yes: Dr. Emmanuel Bizimana ******** [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: comments.docx Attachment Submitted filename: PONE-D-24-03754_ reviewer.pdf https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0305087.r001
Revision 1
9 May 2024 Author Response Respons to reviewers Reviewer #1 This study focuses on analyzing the differences in the amount, types, and causes of household food waste between urban and rural areas. It was conducted in Bogor Regency, Indonesia, and involved 215 households. The researchers used waste compositional analysis for food and diaries for beverages to assess household food waste. However, it could benefit from more detailed explanations of the methodology, a deeper analysis of findings, and a more comprehensive presentation to provide a clearer picture of the research. Some of the issues which needs to be addressed before further process are the following: Abstract: 1. This abstract need revision: Background and Gap (reason you are conducting this study in this area), are the main missing parts in this abstract. Response: Thank you, we have added the background and gap in the abstract Line 16-18: Studies on food waste in Southeast Asia are currently limited, with a notable absence of comparative analyses investigating the volume and composition of food waste in urban and rural areas through direct measurement. Introduction: 2. The citation markers (e.g., "(1)", "(2-6)") disrupt the flow of the text and could be incorporated more smoothly. Please use a proper citation style. Response: Thank you, we have changed it. Line 35-38 Food loss and waste refer to a reduction in both the quantity and quality of food intended for human consumption along the food supply chain (1). Food waste (FW) occurs in retail (e.g., supermarkets and traditional markets), food services (e.g., restaurants, catering, canteens, and home consumption), households, and individuals (2–6). 3. The transition between discussing global food waste and focusing on Indonesia could be smoother. Consider using transitional phrases to connect these sections more effectively. Response: Thank you, we have added the transition words. Line 39-52 The United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) estimated that 17% of the food produced globally was discarded or not consumed. In 2019, the global average FW reached 121 kg/capita/year, equivalent to 931 million tons of food discarded at retail and consumer levels. Furthermore, households accounted for 61% of the total FW, while food services and retail contributed 26% and 13%, respectively (7). Given Indonesia’s status as the fourth-most populous country in the world, understanding its food loss and waste trends become crucial. A study on food waste study in Indonesia over the two decades (2000-2019) revealed a concerning increase from 39% to 55%, equivalent to 5-19 million tons per year. Notably, 80% of this waste originated from households, with 44% being edible food (8). However, there remains a dearth of detailed data on the characteristics of FW in Indonesia, particularly through direct measurement. Halving global FW per capita at the retail and consumer levels is one of the targets of the Sustainable Developments Goals 12. To achieve this target, accurate FW measurements are essential for identifying the contributing factors. 4. line 50, you said “Moreover, studies on FW in middle-income countries, particularly Southeast Asia, are limited.” However, you didn’t acknowledge the limitations of existing research. It's important to acknowledge the limitations of existing research, particularly the lack of detailed data on food waste in Indonesia. This could help set the stage for the current study and emphasize its importance. You didn’t your study area and made all data underlying the findings in your manuscript fully available. Please do it. Response: We have added the information. Line 53-63 Studies on household FW have been conducted in many countries, especially developed countries in Europe (9–14), America (15,16), Canada (17,18), and China (19). The methods used to quantify food waste vary, including direct measurements such as waste composition analysis (11–13,18,20) and waste audits (17), as well as indirect measurements like modeling (16,21) and questionnaires (9,22). These studies also examined nutrient loss (15), factors related to food waste such as family characteristics (13,22), dietary quality (16,18), and consumer behaviors (9). However, a disproportionate number of studies have been conducted in urban areas than rural areas (7). Additionally, research on household FW quantity and composition in middle-income countries, particularly Southeast Asia, is limited. While, some studies utilize direct measurements of household FW, there is a lack of data on FW categorized by food types and groups, or comparisons between urban and rural areas (23–26). Methodology: 5. While the study mentions the use of multistage random sampling, it does not elaborate on the specific details of how households were selected within each stage. Response: Thank you for the comments, we have added the information in the method section Line 96-100: Multistage random sampling was employed to select the households. In the first stage, sub-districts with urban and rural characteristics were selected. In the second stage, villages or urban wards with the largest population were selected, and then neighborhoods within each village were randomly chosen. Finally, household samples were randomly selected from the list of households obtained from these selected neighborhoods. 6. This approach introduces inconsistencies, potentially affecting data reliability. The diary method has limitations like forgetfulness and inaccurate estimations. I suggest to improve measurement techniques, you implement “waste audits”, where trained personnel sort and weigh household waste samples over an extended period. You can also use “Smart sensor technology”. This Smart sensor integrated into trash bins to automatically quantify and categorize waste, providing real-time data collection without relying on self-reporting. Response: Thank you for the suggestion. We might consider conducting waste audits in a separate study. Meanwhile, in the study conducted in 2023, we employed the diary method solely for beverage waste, while all solid waste was analyzed using waste compositional analysis. We discovered that beverage waste comprised only 0.8% of total food waste. Therefore, we are confident that this would not compromise the overall data reliability of the study. 7. The study mentions obtaining written informed consent from participants and approval from the Human Research Ethics Committee. However, it does not provide details on how privacy and confidentiality were ensured, especially given the sensitive nature of waste-related data. Response: Thank you, we have already added confidentiality information regarding the research data. Line 127-128 The data obtained from this research will be treated confidentially, only the research team responsible for this study will be able to access and use it. 8. The adaptation of the method from the National Zero Waste Council of Canada introduces a potential bias if the waste generation patterns and waste management practices in Indonesia differ significantly from those in Canada. This raises questions about the validity and applicability of the methodology to the local context. Response: Thank you for pointing this out. We acknowledge that there are differences in waste generation patterns and waste management practices between Canada and Indonesia. Therefore, we adapted the extrapolation method by considering rural and urban characteristics specific to Indonesia, a step that was not taken in Canada. The method adapted from the National Zero Waste Council of Canada involved extrapolation to calculate the average food waste at the regional level. In the method outlined by the National Zero Waste Council of Canada, estimating the quantity of food waste for a region could be conducted in several ways depending on the type of study carried out. The waste compositional study with individual sampling; extrapolation was calculated by multiplying the kilograms of food waste per household by the number of households in the area. In this study, the adaptation carried out was that the quantity of food waste had already been calculated in kilograms per capita per household in urban and rural areas, and extrapolation took into account the urban and rural populations proportionally. Therefore, the calculation for the average of food waste at the regional level was conducted by multiplying the kilograms of food waste per household in urban areas by the urban population, adding it to the kilograms of food waste per household in rural areas multiplied by the rural population, and then dividing by the total population. Line 114-122: In this study, the adaptation involved calculating the quantity of food waste in kilograms per capita per household in urban and rural areas, with extrapolation adjusting for the urban and rural populations proportionally. Therefore, the calculation for the average FW at the regional level was conducted by multiplying the kilograms of FW per household in urban areas by the urban population, adding it to the kilograms of FW per household in rural areas multiplied by the rural population, and then dividing by the total population. The total population of Bogor Regency at the end of 2022 was obtained from the Bogor Regency Population and Civil Registry Office. The total population in Bogor Regency was 5,427,068 people, consisting of 390,047 people in rural areas and 5,037,021 people in urban areas. Result: 9. Why can’t you present your result by figures? The figures presented in the comparison study could provide valuable insights into the differences and similarities between the urban and rural contexts. Response: Thank you, we have changed the table 1 into figures. The table were available in supplementary file. 10. Line 109. While statistical significance (p<0.001) is mentioned, it would be beneficial to provide confidence intervals or other measures of uncertainty to qualify the findings and indicate the robustness of the observed differences between urban and rural areas. Response: thank you, we have added the confidence intervals in the supplementary file. 11. Line 135. Reasons for throwing away food: Better by comparison: “why do urban areas generate more FW per capita? Are there specific consumption patterns, food distribution systems, or waste management practices that contribute to this disparity?” Response: Thank you for pointing this out. We have added it into the discussion section. Therefore, in the results section we only describe the results. Discussion: 12. The discussion does not provide a clear context for the study or its significance. It merely states the findings without explaining why the study was conducted or what implications these findings might have. It lacks depth in analysis and fails to offer comprehensive solutions to address the complex issue of food waste. Response: Thank you for pointing this out. We have revised the discussion section. Implication of the findings also provided in the policy implication. The most commonly discarded edible FW in both urban and rural areas consist of cereals, tubers and their derivatives, vegetables, and legumes (Figure 2). The main contributors to inedible food waste were fruits and their derivatives, along with vegetables (Figure 3). The results of this study imply that strategies for preventing and reducing household FW can focus on four food groups. In urban areas, education can be concentrated on preventing and reducing edible FW (rice, vegetables, tempeh, and tofu) as well as practical training to reuse or recycle inedible FW (fruits and vegetables). Meanwhile, in rural areas, education can be focus reducing edible FW (vegetables) by improving storing practices and practical training to reuse or recycle inedible FW (fruits). Various reasons underlie food waste, depending on the type of food (Table 3). Information on food storage, including techniques to extend the shelf life of food and proper food storage practices, is applicable to all types of food. Encouraging behavioral changes in cooking and eating habits is crucial to preventing and reducing food waste, especially for foods such as rice, vegetables, plant-based foods (tofu and tempeh), and cooked foods. Utilizing data-related information on food packaging can help prevent wastage of bread and packaged foods. The proportion of inedible FW was higher than that of edible FW in both the urban and rural areas. Urban households were more likely to discard edible FW than rural households (38.2% and 23.4 %, respectively) (Figure 1). This implies that urban households throw away more food suitable for consumption. Consistent with studies in the European Union and Lebanon, this study found that the quantity of household FW in urban areas was higher than that in rural areas (32,33). Household food waste generated in urban areas exceeds that of rural areas, attributed to disparities in food systems, food access, consumer behavior, and food waste utilization or management. In rural settings, self-produced food sources prevail, contrasting with the urban areas where processed food purchases predominate, leading to amplified food waste generation (34). The growth of modern retail, restaurants, and fast-food outlets in urban areas affects consumer preferences, purchasing behavior, and food accessibility, thereby driving higher food waste rates (35). Urban residents tend to prefer quick and convenient food preparation, resulting in over-purchasing, high consumption of processed foods, and foods from outside the home (restaurants, fast food outlets, and street food) (34). This trend contributes to the generation of food waste (34,36). On the other hand, many rural households convert their food waste into compost or use it as feed for pets or livestock (38,39), thereby reducing the amount of FW disposed of in bins (38). This study found a higher household income and education level in urban areas than in rural areas (Table 1). Income is a major driver to household FW generation (22). Urban residents have higher incomes but allocate a lower proportion of food expenditure than those living in rural areas, leading to a higher dietary diversity (35). Moreover, the higher dietary quality correlates with greater FW, as individuals with a high dietary quality consume larger quantities of vegetables and fruits, which are the most discarded food waste (37). 13. please cite your results (tables, figures) in this part Response: Thank you, we have cited tie tables or figures in the discussion section Conclusion: 14. This conclusion oversimplifies the complexities of FW generation and overlooks the importance of context-specific factors in determining effective prevention and reduction strategies. A more nuanced analysis taking into account the unique characteristics of each setting would provide a stronger foundation for developing targeted interventions to address FW in both urban and rural areas. Response: Thank you for the comments. We have revised the conclusion. Line 273-287: The quantity of household food waste differs significantly between urban and rural areas, with urban households discarding more edible food than their rural counterparts. Cereals, tubers and their derivatives (especially rice), vegetables, and legumes were the major contributors to edible food waste, whereas fruits were the main contributors to inedible food waste in both areas. Additionally, the drivers of food waste were found to be similar in both urban and rural areas. Strategies for food waste prevention and reduction should target urban areas and focus on food groups that contribute significantly to edible food waste, such as cereals, tubers, and their derivatives, particularly rice, vegetables, and legumes. Meanwhile, managing inedible food waste should prioritize the reuse and recycling of fruits and vegetables to prevent their disposal in landfills, especially in rural areas. Disparities exist in food waste drivers, primarily depending on the type of food rather than the location of the resident. Therefore, awareness campaigns and behavior change initiatives should take into account the main drivers of food waste based on the type of food. Understanding the quantity, composition, and driver Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Respons to reviewers.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0305087.r002
24 May 2024 Decision Letter - Fabien MUHIRWA, Editor The quantity and composition of household food waste: implications for policy PONE-D-24-03754R1 Dear Dr. Diana, 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, Fabien MUHIRWA Academic Editor PLOS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0305087.r003
Formally Accepted
3 Jun 2024 Acceptance Letter - Fabien MUHIRWA, Editor PONE-D-24-03754R1 PLOS ONE Dear Dr. Diana, 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. Fabien MUHIRWA Academic Editor PLOS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0305087.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 .