Factors influencing IMF assistance in the Sub-Saharan African region

Kalindu Abeywickrama; Nehan Perera; Sithesha Samarathunga; Harshani Pabasara; Ruwan Jayathilaka; Krishantha Wisenthige

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0307071

Peer Review History

Original SubmissionFebruary 17, 2024
19 Apr 2024 Decision Letter - Md. Monirul Islam, Editor PONE-D-24-06234Factors influencing IMF assistance in the Sub-Saharan African regionPLOS ONE Dear Dr. Jayathilaka, 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 Jun 03 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, Md. Monirul Islam, 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 amend your authorship list in your manuscript file to include authors Dr. Sithesha Samarathunga and Dr. Harshini Pabasara. 3. Please ensure that you refer to Figure 1 in your text as, if accepted, production will need this reference to link the reader to the figure. 4. We note that [Figure 1] 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 Figure 1 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/ Additional Editor Comments: Reviewer-1 This paper takes several economic variables identified in existing work as driving countries to take IMF lending and examines the extent to which they drive countries to the IMF in SSA. They find evidence that corruption and GDP growth matter a lot, while inflation and current account balance do not. My main overarching comment is that there needs to be discussion of the politics of IMF lending, and the authors need to account for political factors empirically. The authors note that IMF lending can be costly, but there is no deeper discussion. There is a large literature in political science and economics focused on how governments try to avoid the stringent conditions that come attached to IMF loans. Relevant factors include regime type, political ideology, geopolitical closeness to the US, temporary UNSC membership, and the availability of outside options (i.e., other lenders). In SSA, China has emerged as a major source of financing. No empirical examination of IMF lending is complete without consideration of these factors. The basic models focus only on the economic variables of interest, which makes it very hard to draw conclusions. The specifications are also not in line with leading literature in political science and economics. It is standard to use country and year fixed effects when predicting IMF program participation. There is also a huge cohort of standard control variables that are missing. See here for one example, specifically their first stage specification: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11558-020-09405-x The writing is also unclear or lacks polish in several spots. For example, on p. 7: “The analysis emphasises. They emphasise.” Reviewer-2 I want to commend your effort in analysing the trend in IMF assistance for the SSA countries, and your significant departure from previous studies in providing a long range of years of these assistance. Your study is unique and it took a carful look at the factors determinig assistance from IMF over the years. However, I am worried that the result presented is not as robust as the literature. I expect an additional detailed presentation of results in terms of the activities of the participating countries. For example, there should be a result table detailing each of the 39 countries vis-a-vis the six factors influencing IMF assistance. This table will be an improvement over Table 1 and will make comparisons easier across the different countries. Additional comments (Academic editor): 1. The literature review should be merged with the introduction section. It should be very specific and concise. 2. The introduction should be more research-focused and concise. 3. A conceptual framework is needed to clarify the overall research flow. 4. Theoretical justification of the selection of the model is suggested. 5. The limitations of the study should be highlighted at the end of the conclusion section. 6. The manuscript should be edited by a native English editing service. [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 Reviewer #3: Yes ******** 2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: No Reviewer #2: No 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: Yes 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: No 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 paper takes several economic variables identified in existing work as driving countries to take IMF lending and examines the extent to which they drive countries to the IMF in SSA. They find evidence that corruption and GDP growth matter a lot, while inflation and current account balance do not. My main overarching comment is that there needs to be discussion of the politics of IMF lending, and the authors need to account for political factors empirically. The authors note that IMF lending can be costly, but there is no deeper discussion. There is a large literature in political science and economics focused on how governments try to avoid the stringent conditions that come attached to IMF loans. Relevant factors include regime type, political ideology, geopolitical closeness to the US, temporary UNSC membership, and the availability of outside options (i.e., other lenders). In SSA, China has emerged as a major source of financing. No empirical examination of IMF lending is complete without consideration of these factors. The basic models focus only on the economic variables of interest, which makes it very hard to draw conclusions. The specifications are also not in line with leading literature in political science and economics. It is standard to use country and year fixed effects when predicting IMF program participation. There is also a huge cohort of standard control variables that are missing. See here for one example, specifically their first stage specification: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11558-020-09405-x The writing is also unclear or lacks polish in several spots. For example, on p. 7: “The analysis emphasises. They emphasise.” Reviewer #2: Dear Author, I want to commend your effort in analysing the trend in IMF assistance for the SSA countries, and your significant departure from previous studies in providing a long range of years of these assistance. Your study is unique and it took a carful look at the factors determinig assistance from IMF over the years. However, I am worried that the result presented is not as rubust as the literature. I expect an additional detailed presentation of results in terms of the activities of the participating countries. For example, there should be a result table detailing each of the 39 countries vis-a-vis the six factors influencing IMF assistance. This table will be an amprovement over Table 1 and will make comparisons easier across the different countries. Reviewer #3: This is an interesting study, and the paper is generally well written and structured. The paper provides a comprehensive analysis of the factors influencing IMF assistance in the Sub-Saharan African region , and the findings offer valuable insights that significantly contribute to the existing literature. The methodology is robust, and the results are presented clearly, enhancing the overall impact of the study. Well done! ****** 6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files. If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public. Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy. Reviewer #1: No Reviewer #2: Yes: Chiedozie Okechukwu OKAFOR Reviewer #3: 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.0307071.r001
Revision 1
13 May 2024 Author Response Authors Response to editor and Reviewers Comments Dear Editor and Reviewers, We greatly appreciate the time invested in reading our manuscript and providing the necessary feedback to improve the overall quality of our work. All the mentioned comments have been considered and the revisions made accordingly. Please note that the line numbers referred to in this document are aligned with the revised manuscript which includes track changes. Thank you once again for your valuable feedback. Reviewer 1 comment 1: This paper takes several economic variables identified in existing work as driving countries to take IMF lending and examines the extent to which they drive countries to the IMF in SSA. They find evidence that corruption and GDP growth matter a lot, while inflation and current account balance do not. My main overarching comment is that there needs to be discussion of the politics of IMF lending, and the authors need to account for political factors empirically. The authors note that IMF lending can be costly, but there is no deeper discussion. There is a large literature in political science and economics focused on how governments try to avoid the stringent conditions that come attached to IMF loans. Relevant factors include regime type, political ideology, geopolitical closeness to the US, temporary UNSC membership, and the availability of outside options (i.e., other lenders). In SSA, China has emerged as a major source of financing. No empirical examination of IMF lending is complete without consideration of these factors. The basic models focus only on the economic variables of interest, which makes it very hard to draw conclusions. The specifications are also not in line with leading literature in political science and economics. It is standard to use country and year-fixed effects when predicting IMF program participation. There is also a huge cohort of standard control variables that are missing. See here for one example, specifically their first stage specification: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11558-020-09405-x Authors’ Response to Reviewer 1 comment 1: Thank you for your insightful comments and suggestions regarding our paper. We appreciate the opportunity to address your concerns and improve the comprehensiveness of our analysis. We have carefully considered your feedback and made significant enhancements to our study by incorporating political variables to better understand the dynamics of IMF lending in Sub-Saharan Africa (SSA). Specifically, we have introduced variables such as regime types, UNSC membership, and China loans, which are crucial in capturing the political dimensions of IMF lending decisions. In response to your comment regarding the need to discuss the politics of IMF lending, we have expanded our discussion to include the political factors influencing countries' decisions to seek IMF assistance. We acknowledge the importance of considering factors such as regime type, political ideology, geopolitical relationships, and the availability of alternative financing options. These factors are now integrated into our analysis, providing a more comprehensive understanding of IMF lending behaviour in SSA. To ensure clarity and transparency, we have outlined the operationalization of these political variables as dummy variables and provided detailed explanations of their inclusion in the methodology section (see lines 661-662). Specifically, we introduced the political variables in the introduction section (see lines 90-92) and elaborated on them in the literature review (see lines 458-593). Additionally, we have integrated discussions of these variables into the hypothesis testing sections (see lines 705-706, 707-708, 714-715, 716-718, 723-724, and 725-726), demonstrating their relevance to our research objectives. Furthermore, we have ensured consistency between the main text and supporting materials, including tables and appendices. For example, Table 1 presents the data sources used in our analysis (see lines 635-636), while Table 2 displays the panel probit model estimated results, including the newly added political variables (see lines 677-679). Appendices S3 and S5 delve into deeper insights into the empirical analysis, providing step-by-step explanations of the regression analysis and newly generated predicted probabilities, respectively. We believe that these enhancements significantly strengthen the rigor and relevance of our study, addressing your concerns regarding the political dimensions of IMF lending in SSA. We hope that our revised manuscript meets your expectations and contributes meaningfully to the literature on this topic. Thank you once again for your valuable feedback and for guiding us in improving the quality of our research. Reviewer 1 comment 2: The writing is also unclear or lacks polish in several spots. For example, on p. 7: “The analysis emphasises. They emphasise Authors’ Response to Reviewer 1 comment 2: Thank you for your comment regarding the clarity and polish of the writing in our manuscript. We appreciate your feedback and have taken steps to improve the readability of the text. Specifically, on page 7, we have revised the sentence in question to enhance clarity and ensure consistency in language usage. We have addressed the issue of ambiguity by refining the phrasing and eliminating unnecessary repetition. These revisions aim to enhance the overall coherence and professional presentation of our analysis. We are committed to delivering a manuscript that meets the highest standards of clarity and polish, and we believe that these improvements contribute to achieving that goal. Thank you for bringing this to our attention, and we hope that the revised manuscript meets your expectations. Reviewer 2 comment 1: I want to commend your effort in analysing the trend in IMF assistance for the SSA countries, and your significant departure from previous studies in providing a long range of years of this assistance. Your study is unique, and it took a careful look at the factors determining assistance from the IMF over the years. However, I am worried that the result presented is not as robust as the literature. I expect an additional detailed presentation of results in terms of the activities of the participating countries. For example, there should be a result table detailing each of the 39 countries vis-a-vis the six factors influencing IMF assistance. This table will be an improvement over Table 1 and will make comparisons easier across the different countries. Authors’ Response to Reviewer 2 comment 1: Thank you for recognizing the unique contribution of our study in analysing the trend in IMF assistance for Sub-Saharan African (SSA) countries over an extended period. We appreciate your feedback and the opportunity to further strengthen our analysis. In response to your concern about the robustness of the results presented, we have taken additional steps to provide a detailed presentation of the results in terms of the activities of the participating countries. Specifically, we have included an appendix (Appendix S4) that offers a comprehensive overview of each of the 39 countries vis-à-vis the six factors influencing IMF assistance. Appendix S4 features line graphs for each country, illustrating the fluctuations of the six macroeconomic factors influencing IMF assistance over time. These graphs facilitate comparisons across different countries and offer a visual representation of the data trends. We believe that this additional detailed presentation enhances the comprehensiveness and robustness of our analysis, allowing for a more nuanced understanding of the factors driving IMF assistance in SSA. In the results and hypothesis section, we have provided a detailed explanation of Appendix S4, showcasing the fluctuations observed for each country from lines 686 to 696. This ensures that readers can easily access and interpret the additional information provided in the appendix. We are confident that these enhancements contribute to addressing your concern and further strengthen the quality of our manuscript. Thank you once again for your valuable feedback and for guiding us in improving the depth and rigor of our analysis. Reviewer 2 comment 2: The introduction should be more research-focused and concise. Authors’ Response to Reviewer 2 comment 2: Thank you for your valuable feedback regarding the introduction section of our manuscript. We appreciate your suggestion to make it more research-focused and concise. We have duly noted your comment and made the necessary adjustments in the revised version of the manuscript. Specifically, we have streamlined the introduction to ensure that it provides a clear and concise overview of the research objectives, significance of the study, and key research questions addressed. By focusing on the research aspects and removing any unnecessary details, we aim to create an introduction that effectively sets the stage for the subsequent sections of the paper, while also maintaining the reader's interest and attention. We are grateful for your constructive feedback, which has helped us improve the quality and clarity of our manuscript. Reviewer 2 comment 3: A conceptual framework is needed to clarify the overall research flow. Authors’ Response to Reviewer 2 comment 3: Thank you for your feedback regarding the need for a conceptual framework to clarify the overall research flow. We appreciate your insight into improving the structure and coherence of our manuscript. In response to your comment, we have integrated a conceptual framework into the revised version of the manuscript. The conceptual framework can be found on page 26 and provides a visual representation of the theoretical underpinnings and research flow of our study. By including a conceptual framework, we aim to enhance the clarity and coherence of our research approach, helping readers better understand the theoretical framework guiding our analysis and interpretation of results. We are grateful for your constructive feedback, which has contributed to strengthening the overall quality and effectiveness of our manuscript. Reviewer 2 comment 4: Theoretical justification of the selection of the model is suggested. Authors’ Response to Reviewer 2 comment 4: Thank you for your suggestion regarding the theoretical justification of the model selection. We appreciate your feedback and have integrated the necessary explanations into the revised version of the manuscript. In response to your comment, we have provided a theoretical justification for the selection of the model on page 25, specifically from lines 594 to 623. In this section, we elaborate on the theoretical underpinnings of our chosen model, highlighting its relevance to the research objectives and the theoretical framework guiding our analysis. By incorporating this explanation, we aim to enhance the transparency and rigor of our research approach, ensuring that readers have a clear understanding of the theoretical basis for our modelling decisions. We are grateful for your valuable feedback, which has helped us strengthen the theoretical foundation of our manuscript. Reviewer 2 comment 5: The limitations of the study should be highlighted at the end of the conclusion section. Authors’ Response to Reviewer 2 comment 5: Thank you for your valuable comment regarding the need to highlight the limitations of the study. We appreciate your feedback and have taken the necessary steps to address this suggestion in the revised version of the manuscript. In response to your comment, we have highlighted the limitations of the study on page 46, specifically at the end of the conclusion section. By including this discussion, we aim to provide readers with a balanced assessment of the strengths and weaknesses of our research findings. We believe that acknowledging the limitations of the study is essential for promoting transparency and ensuring that readers have a clear understanding of the scope and implications of our research. We are grateful for your constructive feedback, which has contributed to enhancing the overall quality and rigor of our manuscript. Reviewer 2 comment 6: The manuscript should be edited by a native English editing service. Authors’ Response to Reviewer 2 comment 6: Thank you for your suggestion regarding the language of the manuscript. We acknowledge the importance of clear and polished language in scholarly writing. In response to your comment, we have taken steps to improve the language of the manuscript. We have carefully reviewed and revised the text to ensure clarity, coherence, and grammatical accuracy. Additionally, we have paid particular attention to sentence structure, word choice, and overall readability. While we have made significant efforts to enhance the language of the manuscript, we understand the value of professional editing services. We will consider utilizing a native English editing service to further refine the language and ensure the highest quality of writing. We appreciate your feedback, which has helped us strengthen the clarity and professionalism of our manuscript. Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Response to the Reviewers.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0307071.r002
1 Jul 2024 Decision Letter - Md. Monirul Islam, Editor Factors influencing IMF assistance in the Sub-Saharan African region PONE-D-24-06234R1 Dear Dr. Ruwan Jayathilaka, 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, Md. Monirul Islam, PhD Academic Editor PLOS ONE Additional Editor Comments (optional): Dear Author Thank you so much for your efforts. Congratulations for your great work. Reviewers' comments: Reviewer's Responses to Questions Comments to the Author 1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation. Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed ******** 2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions? The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented. Reviewer #1: (No Response) Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: (No Response) Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available? The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified. Reviewer #1: (No Response) Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English? PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here. Reviewer #1: (No Response) Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 6. Review Comments to the Author Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters) Reviewer #1: (No Response) Reviewer #2: All the concerns I pointed our earlier have been attended to. This paper can be published at this point. I appreciate the authors for comming through. ****** 7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files. If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public. Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy. Reviewer #1: No Reviewer #2: Yes: Chiedozie Okechukwu Okafor ******** https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0307071.r003
Formally Accepted
8 Jul 2024 Acceptance Letter - Md. Monirul Islam, Editor PONE-D-24-06234R1 PLOS ONE Dear Dr. Jayathilaka, 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. Md. Monirul Islam Academic Editor PLOS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0307071.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 .