PONE-D-24-09924Regional Characterization of Meteorological and Agricultural Drought in Baluchistan Province, PakistanPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Muhammad Rafiq,

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 14 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,

Salim Heddam

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at 

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and 

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. Please note that funding information should not appear in any 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.

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. For studies involving third-party data, we encourage authors to share any data specific to their analyses that they can legally distribute. PLOS recognizes, however, that authors may be using third-party data they do not have the rights to share. When third-party data cannot be publicly shared, authors must provide all information necessary for interested researchers to apply to gain access to the data. (https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-acceptable-data-access-restrictions) 

For any third-party data that the authors cannot legally distribute, they should include the following information in their Data Availability Statement upon submission:

1) A description of the data set and the third-party source

2) If applicable, verification of permission to use the data set

3) Confirmation of whether the authors received any special privileges in accessing the data that other researchers would not have

4) All necessary contact information others would need to apply to gain access to the data

5. PLOS requires an ORCID iD for the corresponding author in Editorial Manager on papers submitted after December 6th, 2016. Please ensure that you have an ORCID iD and that it is validated in Editorial Manager. To do this, go to ‘Update my Information’ (in the upper left-hand corner of the main menu), and click on the Fetch/Validate link next to the ORCID field. This will take you to the ORCID site and allow you to create a new iD or authenticate a pre-existing iD in Editorial Manager. Please see the following video for instructions on linking an ORCID iD to your Editorial Manager account: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_xcclfuvtxQ

6. We note that Figure 1 and 6 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 (a) present written permission from the copyright holder to publish these figures specifically under the CC BY 4.0 license, or (b) remove the figures from your submission:

a. You may seek permission from the original copyright holder of Figure 1 and 6 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/

7. 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.

8. We note you have included a table to which you do not refer in the text of your manuscript. Please ensure that you refer to Table 3 in your text; if accepted, production will need this reference to link the reader to the Table.

Additional Editor Comments:

Reviewer 1#:In order to identify drought episodes in Baluchistan, a comprehensive analysis was conducted using three key indices: the Reconnaissance Drought Index (RDI), Standardized Precipitation Evapotranspiration Index (SPEI), and Vegetation Condition Index (VCI). This analysis took into account various factors such as precipitation, temperature, potential evapotranspiration (PET), and vegetation condition. The work is original, but I recommend that the following major changes be made before it is accepted for publication.

Why the selected models were chosen and their advantages should be expressed.

My literature section is limited, sources from 2023 and 2024 should be added.

After its first mention, vegetation drought index (VCI) should be abbreviated

In order to provide a more comprehensive literature section, it is suggested to incorporate the following paper.

• Comparison of meteorological indices for drought monitoring and evaluating: a case study from Euphrates basin, Turkey

It is necessary to verify all equations. Equation 8 contains several missing and erroneous statements that need to be addressed.

Here is an explanation of how the spatio-temporal distribution of drought was formed. To enhance the method section, it is advisable to employ the state interpolation method and provide a comprehensive explanation of the interpolation technique.

Please cite fallowing paper fort his aim:

• Spatio-temporal analysis of meteorological and hydrological droughts in the Euphrates Basin, Turkey

• Spatial analysis of seasonal precipitation using various interpolation methods in the Euphrates basin, Turkey

In the introduction section, it is important to highlight the advantages of interpolation methods. Interpolation methods offer several benefits that make them valuable in various fields. Firstly, they allow for the estimation of values between known data points, providing a continuous representation of the data. This helps in accurately predicting unknown values and filling in gaps in the data set. Additionally, interpolation methods aid in reducing noise and smoothing out irregularities in the data, leading to a more precise and reliable analysis. Furthermore, these methods are computationally efficient and can handle large datasets efficiently. By incorporating interpolation methods into the introduction section, readers will gain a deeper understanding of the significance and usefulness of these techniques.

The discussion section is not deep. It would be good to improve.

Suggestions for future studies can be made and it can be suggested which other water resources problems the wavelet transform can be used to solve.

Reviewer 2#:The research entitled “Regional Characterization of Meteorological and Agricultural Drought in Baluchistan Province, Pakistan” aimed to examine the spatiotemporal pattern of three competitive drought indices (RDI, SPEI, and VCI) in Balochistan province of Pakistan.

The study is important to reveal the regional climatic characteristics of largest province of Pakistan and related to its vegetative (Agricultural) phenomenon. Overall, research design is valid but substantial improvements are needed. My specific comments are:

1. Although sample stations are good representative of study area, but the methods are very simple and presents less novelty. Research design need to be enhanced adding drought frequency and trend analysis. Follow the drought run theory.

2. How VCI is calculated? Which remote sensing dataset used? The method is not properly described. Which temporal scale is used? If it is calculated using Landsat, the results might be uncertain. MODIS is more recommended for a province level study area and will provide more consistent results. In this case, VCI can be regressed with 20 years analysis (based on the dates of datasets). At what temporal scale VCI is generated? 12 months? Clarify the methodology.

3. Spatial presentation of RDI and SPEI can be added for spatial comparison with VCI at same scale.

4. A Pearson correlation matrix can be added for all indices for more clear statistical relationship between the variables. Regression scatterplot reveals a very weak relationship of VCI with SPEI. Need to be discussed, why? No need of table 8

5. Discussion part need to be more strong with more relevant reference and discussing the major causes of previous drought events.

Overall, research design of the study need to be enhanced adding more sound methods and results.

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

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: No

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: In order to identify drought episodes in Baluchistan, a comprehensive analysis was conducted using three key indices: the Reconnaissance Drought Index (RDI), Standardized Precipitation Evapotranspiration Index (SPEI), and Vegetation Condition Index (VCI). This analysis took into account various factors such as precipitation, temperature, potential evapotranspiration (PET), and vegetation condition. The work is original, but I recommend that the following major changes be made before it is accepted for publication.

Why the selected models were chosen and their advantages should be expressed.

My literature section is limited, sources from 2023 and 2024 should be added.

After its first mention, vegetation drought index (VCI) should be abbreviated

In order to provide a more comprehensive literature section, it is suggested to incorporate the following paper.

• Comparison of meteorological indices for drought monitoring and evaluating: a case study from Euphrates basin, Turkey

It is necessary to verify all equations. Equation 8 contains several missing and erroneous statements that need to be addressed.

Here is an explanation of how the spatio-temporal distribution of drought was formed. To enhance the method section, it is advisable to employ the state interpolation method and provide a comprehensive explanation of the interpolation technique.

Please cite fallowing paper fort his aim:

• Spatio-temporal analysis of meteorological and hydrological droughts in the Euphrates Basin, Turkey

• Spatial analysis of seasonal precipitation using various interpolation methods in the Euphrates basin, Turkey

In the introduction section, it is important to highlight the advantages of interpolation methods. Interpolation methods offer several benefits that make them valuable in various fields. Firstly, they allow for the estimation of values between known data points, providing a continuous representation of the data. This helps in accurately predicting unknown values and filling in gaps in the data set. Additionally, interpolation methods aid in reducing noise and smoothing out irregularities in the data, leading to a more precise and reliable analysis. Furthermore, these methods are computationally efficient and can handle large datasets efficiently. By incorporating interpolation methods into the introduction section, readers will gain a deeper understanding of the significance and usefulness of these techniques.

The discussion section is not deep. It would be good to improve.

Suggestions for future studies can be made and it can be suggested which other water resources problems the wavelet transform can be used to solve.

Reviewer #2: The research entitled “Regional Characterization of Meteorological and Agricultural Drought in Baluchistan Province, Pakistan” aimed to examine the spatiotemporal pattern of three competitive drought indices (RDI, SPEI, and VCI) in Balochistan province of Pakistan.

The study is important to reveal the regional climatic characteristics of largest province of Pakistan and related to its vegetative (Agricultural) phenomenon. Overall, research design is valid but substantial improvements are needed. My specific comments are:

1. Although sample stations are good representative of study area, but the methods are very simple and presents less novelty. Research design need to be enhanced adding drought frequency and trend analysis. Follow the drought run theory.

2. How VCI is calculated? Which remote sensing dataset used? The method is not properly described. Which temporal scale is used? If it is calculated using Landsat, the results might be uncertain. MODIS is more recommended for a province level study area and will provide more consistent results. In this case, VCI can be regressed with 20 years analysis (based on the dates of datasets). At what temporal scale VCI is generated? 12 months? Clarify the methodology.

3. Spatial presentation of RDI and SPEI can be added for spatial comparison with VCI at same scale.

4. A Pearson correlation matrix can be added for all indices for more clear statistical relationship between the variables. Regression scatterplot reveals a very weak relationship of VCI with SPEI. Need to be discussed, why? No need of table 8

5. Discussion part need to be more strong with more relevant reference and discussing the major causes of previous drought events.

Overall, research design of the study need to be enhanced adding more sound methods and results.

**********

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: Sana Arshad

**********

[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: PLOS.docx

PONE-D-24-09924R1Regional characterization of meteorological and agricultural drought in Baluchistan province, PakistanPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Rahman,

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 Aug 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,

Salim Heddam

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.

Additional Editor Comments:

Reviewer 1#:

All revisions were appied

Can accept Paper after the font size of the letters in Figure 3 is enlarged.

Reviewer 2#:

Although authors have made substantial changes to the manuscript and addressed the comments. Still, a few parts need to be improved

1. Introduction: provide a few more recent drought example studies from Pakistan.

2. The resolution of newly added figures is not good. Please improve the presentation of figure 3, 4, 5 and 6. Increase the legend and label size and try to concise them to take less space. Captains need to be revised. Remove the word “spatio” from these titles.

3. Present the statistical analysis with a good heading. Replace “Correlation statistical tool” with term “statistical analysis through Pearson correlation coefficient and linear regression”.

4. What about Mann-Kendall and Sen’s slope analysis? Why not performed?

5. Align all figures equally in manuscript.

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

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: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

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: Yes

Reviewer #2: No

**********

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: Yes

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: All revisions were appied

Can accept Paper after the font size of the letters in Figure 3 is enlarged.

Reviewer #2: Although authors have made substantial changes to the manuscript and addressed the comments. Still, a few parts need to be improved

1. Introduction: provide a few more recent drought example studies from Pakistan.

2. The resolution of newly added figures is not good. Please improve the presentation of figure 3, 4, 5 and 6. Increase the legend and label size and try to concise them to take less space. Captains need to be revised. Remove the word “spatio” from these titles.

3. Present the statistical analysis with a good heading. Replace “Correlation statistical tool” with term “statistical analysis through Pearson correlation coefficient and linear regression”.

4. What about Mann-Kendall and Sen’s slope analysis? Why not performed?

5. Align all figures equally in manuscript.

**********

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: 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.

Attachments

Attachment

Submitted filename: PLOSR1.docx

Regional characterization of meteorological and agricultural drought in Baluchistan province, Pakistan

PONE-D-24-09924R2

Dear Dr. Rahman

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,

Salim Heddam

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewer 1#:The article is adequately developed. figures and enlarged the font size looks well. Thanks alot for taking attention.

Reviewer 2#:I have now reviewed the research titled "Regional characterization of meteorological and agricultural drought in Baluchistan province, Pakistan.

Authors have improved the manuscript incorporating all suggestions.

I recommend for acceptance

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: (No Response)

**********

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: Yes

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

**********

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: Yes

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

**********

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: Yes

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

**********

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: The article is adequately developed. figures and enlarged the font size looks well. Thanks alot for taking attention.

Reviewer #2: I have now reviewed the research titled "Regional characterization of meteorological and agricultural drought in Baluchistan province, Pakistan. Authors have improved the manuscript incorporating all suggestions.

I recommend for acceptance

**********

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: No

**********