Perception of urban green space among university students in Bangladesh

Bijoya Saha; Shah Md Atiqul Haq

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0311033

Peer Review History

Original SubmissionMay 6, 2024
26 Jun 2024 Decision Letter - Gouranga Lal Dasvarma, Editor PONE-D-24-18205Perception of urban green space among university students in BangladeshPLOS ONE Dear Dr. Atiqul Haq, 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 ensure that your decision is justified on PLOS ONE’s publication criteria and not, for example, on novelty or perceived impact. Please submit your revised manuscript by Aug 10 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, Gouranga Lal Dasvarma, 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. In the online submission form, you indicated that this is a survey study conducted by the authors. If any party requests for data, it can be available to them but not publicly available. All PLOS journals now require all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript to be freely available to other researchers, either 1. In a public repository, 2. Within the manuscript itself, or 3. Uploaded as supplementary information. This policy applies to all data except where public deposition would breach compliance with the protocol approved by your research ethics board. If your data cannot be made publicly available for ethical or legal reasons (e.g., public availability would compromise patient privacy), please explain your reasons on resubmission and your exemption request will be escalated for approval. 3. We note that Figure 3 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 3 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: Please address the comments of the two reviewers thoroughly and satisfactorily and have the manuscript edited by a professional English editor. [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: Partly Reviewer #2: No ******** 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: No Reviewer #2: No ****** 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 offers an important and timely contribution on the perceptions of urban green space from a developing nation's perspective. I commend the author's choice in surveying university students as younger generations are increasingly more cognisant of environmental issues and cues, and, as the author noted, are not always involved in decision-making processes. While the paper has a great deal of potential and provides a much needed perspective from a developing country so acutely impacted by climate change and rapid urbanisation, the paper falls short in a number of areas. First, the literature review does not provide appropriate context or definitions of typologies of green space and how this is defined in a Bangladeshi context (in Section 3.1). There was also scope to strengthen the justification for surveying university students. Please see attached document for additional recommended literature. The methodology section can be improved by justifying the quantitative approach. When investigating 'perceptions', why weren't qualitative methods such as interviews or focus groups employed to provide a more nuanced perspective? Additionally, the author states that the survey design is based on the work by Bonaiuto et al. (2003). However, there is no indication of what these perceptions are nor is this work mentioned in the Literature Review. Notwithstanding that the author may be from a NESB, there are several instances where meaning is lost due to grammatical errors and issues in written expression (refer to the attached document). Several assertions also require clarification. For example, in how does one know whether it’s not the wealth that leads to happiness? (Line 102) and why do university students have a greater understanding of UGS? Returning to context, the paper could be further strengthened with the inclusion of a short discussion on the context of green space planning in Bangladesh. For instance, how are UGS governed and are communities consulted in decision-making processes? This would be particularly beneficial to form a more robust conclusion and set of recommendations. In summary, this paper has the potential to offer critical insights into perceptions of UGS from the developing South. However, it falls short in several areas, and thus requires major revision. I recommend that the author enhance the literature review, methodology, and English language quality and provide stronger justification for the adoption of a quantitative methodology as opposed to qualitative or mixed-methods design. Reviewer #2: Authors have analyzed perception of university students for UGS however manuscript needs significant rewriting. Flow of writing is broken to that extent that not even para , each sentence is disjointed with previous sentence that makes reading not enjoyable. Besides, Introduction and Literature review is written in the form of report rather than a research paper. In fact, Introduction fails to establish the need of the study. I suggest Authors to mix writeup from discussion section in Introduction to clearly bring out the need of the study. The Authors need to answer why university students' perception about GS should be studied? Why it is crucial to examine students' attitude towards UGS? Abstract : No quantitative results presented. Needs Rewriting. Literature Review: this section to be reduced significantly. Pl. understand it is a research paper not a report. Authors need not write too much into details of benefits of UGS/ aspects which are well established. Figure 3.2: Is there a need to Mention QGIS software name and its version? Methods: Too much repetition in methods. should be concise and well explained. Section 3.2 Why Selective sampling? Page 9 Line 276: total samples are 438 or additional samples? Did you use simple random sampling or stratified? Page 10 Table 1: What is the difference between item no 2 and 3 and 4 and 5? Table 2, 3 and 4 can be merged together. Similarly Table 8, 9, 10 and 11 can be merged together. Authors may consider presenting some of the data through charts and graphs. Table 12: Why one value is so extremely high? Conclusion is weak. It needs to be revised in the light of results presented. Discussion consist of Literature Review. it should be mixed with Introduction. ****** 6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files. If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public. Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy. Reviewer #1: No Reviewer #2: No ******** [NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.] While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step. Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: PloS one review.pdf https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0311033.r001
Revision 1
22 Aug 2024 Author Response I would like to express my gratitude to the two reviewers, whose insightful remarks greatly enhanced the paper. We made every effort to respond to every remark. We really hope that the manuscript's reviewers will find it acceptable to publish. Reviewer #1: This paper offers an important and timely contribution on the perceptions of urban green space from a developing nation's perspective. I commend the author's choice in surveying university students as younger generations are increasingly more cognizant of environmental issues and cues, and, as the author noted, are not always involved in decision-making processes. Response: Thank you so much for your appreciation. The issue is very important and the study can be a good reference for future studies. -While the paper has a great deal of potential and provides a much needed perspective from a developing country so acutely impacted by climate change and rapid urbanization, the paper falls short in a number of areas. First, the literature review does not provide appropriate context or definitions of typologies of green space and how this is defined in a Bangladeshi context (in Section 2.1). There was also scope to strengthen the justification for surveying university students. Please see attached document for additional recommended literature. Response: Thank you for referring to the literature and it was very helpful in answering your comment. We have clearly defined the typologies. We also provided justification of surveying university students. Relevant information from the suggested articles have been included. -The methodology section can be improved by justifying the quantitative approach. When investigating 'perceptions', why weren't qualitative methods such as interviews or focus groups employed to provide a more nuanced perspective. Additionally, the author states that the survey design is based on the work by Bonaiuto et al. (2003). However, there is no indication of what these perceptions are nor is this work mentioned in the Literature Review. Response: The study conducted by Bonaiuto et al. (2003) examines the level of satisfaction that residents have with their urban districts. The unidimensional scale measuring green space exhibits strong internal consistency. Consequently, it facilitated the use of instruments that more reliable, and consistently accurate. -Notwithstanding that the author may be from a NESB, there are several instances where meaning is lost due to grammatical errors and issues in written expression (refer to the attached document). Several assertions also require clarification. For example, in how does one know whether it’s not the wealth that leads to happiness? (Line 102) and why do university students have a greater understanding of UGS? Response: It implies that people living in more expensive homes would have better access to green spaces and express higher satisfaction levels. The students of 2021-22 (1st year), 2020-21(2nd year), 2019-20 (3rd year), 2018-19 (4th year) and 2021–22 (Master’s degree program) were selected for the study because they offer diverse perception on urban green spaces. As students’ progress through their academic years, their understanding of the topic and their perceptions evolve. By including students at different stages of learning, we can gain a broader view of how perceptions of urban green spaces change over time. -Returning to context, the paper could be further strengthened with the inclusion of a short discussion on the context of green space planning in Bangladesh. For instance, how are UGS governed and are communities consulted in decision-making processes? This would be particularly beneficial to form a more robust conclusion and set of recommendations. Response: Updated and revised the conclusion and recommendation section This study strongly argued the necessity of adequate planting space in metropolitan areas of Bangladesh. The management of urban green spaces in Bangladesh requires the collaboration of local and national authorities, with planning monitored by master plans and zoning regulations. Therefore, non-governmental organisations (NGOs) and community organisations at the local level must take the initiative in promoting the establishment of green spaces and pushing for the representation of community concerns in planning procedures. Furthermore, we must engage in the technical process of tree planting. Old structures pose a risk for planting trees on their rooftops. Accidents could occur if the roof gets damp. However, in the case of newly constructed buildings, cost-effective chemicals are being utilised to safeguard the roof. In addition, rather than planting trees in a random or disorganised manner, researchers and policymakers must collaborate. Collaboration with researchers generates new ideas, leading to better results. -In summary, this paper has the potential to offer critical insights into perceptions of UGS from the developing South. However, it falls short in several areas, and thus requires major revision. I recommend that the author enhance the literature review, methodology, and English language quality and provide stronger justification for the adoption of a quantitative methodology as opposed to qualitative or mixed-methods design. Response: Checked English and corrected to improve readability -Reviewer #2: Authors have analyzed perception of university students for UGS however manuscript needs significant rewriting. Flow of writing is broken to that extent that not even para , each sentence is disjointed with previous sentence that makes reading not enjoyable. Response: Checked English and corrected to improve readability -Besides, Introduction and Literature review is written in the form of report rather than a research paper. In fact, Introduction fails to establish the need of the study. I suggest Authors to mix writeup from discussion section in Introduction to clearly bring out the need of the study. The Authors need to answer why university students' perception about UGS should be studied? Why it is crucial to examine students' attitude towards UGS? Response: The questions are clearly answered in the introduction section and yellow marked. Abstract: No quantitative results presented. Needs Rewriting. Response: Rewritten Literature Review: this section to be reduced significantly. Pl. understand it is a research paper not a report. Authors need not write too much into details of benefits of UGS/ aspects which are well established. Response: Some sentences have been deleted from the literature review and tried to provide information concisely and coherently. Figure 3.2: Is there a need to Mention QGIS software name and its version? Response: The mentioned QGIS software name and its version have been deleted. One line has been added (273-274). [Note: The map is partially taken from https://www.kalerkantho.com/english/online/national/2020/04/11/34962] Methods: Too much repetition in methods. should be concise and well explained. Response: The repeated sentences have been deleted. Some sentences have been modified. Section 3.2 Why Selective sampling? Response: The confusion has been cleared. Page 9 Line 276: total samples are 438 or additional samples? Response: The confusion has been cleared. Line 298-299-Despite the sample size of 366, we increased the dataset by collecting data from an additional 72 samples. So, the total sample size is 438. Did you use simple random sampling or stratified? Response: The confusion has been cleared. We used random sampling. Page 10 Table 1: What is the difference between item no 2 and 3 and 4 and 5? Response: The confusion has been cleared. Item no Item Item two: There are green spaces for relaxing Item three: There are enough green spaces. Item four: Green areas are in good condition Item five: Many green areas are disappearing Table 2, 3 and 4 can be merged together. Response: Table 2, 3, 4 have been merged (see Table 2) Similarly Table 8, 9, 10 and 11 can be merged together. Response: It is difficult to merge the tables and it will be very clumsy. Authors may consider presenting some of the data through charts and graphs. Response: There are so many variables in those tables. I tried in excel but couldn’t merge those charts and graphs. Table 12: Why one value is so extremely high? Response: The result is from analysis. Conclusion is weak. It needs to be revised in the light of results presented. Response: Revised and improved. Discussion consist of Literature Review. it should be mixed with Introduction. Response: Revised and improved, and merged with introduction. PloS One Review – Perception of urban green space among university students in Bangladesh Abstract – intangible services? Response: The confusion has been cleared. Line 14-17. Urban management initiatives in underdeveloped nations sometimes neglect crucial services for university students, such as studying environments and recreational opportunities. Line 57 – 59 → need connecting sentence Response: The confusion has been cleared and showed connection. Line 58 – more recent data than 2016? Response: provided With more than 40.47% of Bangladesh’s population living in cities as of 2023 (World Bank data), the role of urban forests is becoming increasingly critical. 63 – doesn’t make sense – how does Response: provided Bangladesh's urban management strategies are significantly shaped by the impacts of climate change, particularly in relation to natural disasters such as flooding, cyclones, and rising sea levels (Dewan et al., 2021; Sultana and Selim, 2021). 78 – scope to include lit on green space perception Response: provided 81 – really? I beg to differ! Response: The confusion has been cleared. 84 – enlightening uni students? Focus/justification of study unclear Response: The confusion has been cleared. These difficulties may include navigating the impact of academic and social activities on the environment and finding ways to incorporate sustainable practices into their routines. They have different perspectives and experiences about green spaces and have new ideas about developing green areas in the city. By integrating perspectives from different disciplines, universities contribute to a comprehensive understanding of green space perception. 93 – a better sub-heading would be ‘Determinants of urban green space use’ Response: The confusion has been cleared. 98 – who was surveyed? Response: revised and cleared. 99 – sentence fragment Response: corrected. Age, gender, level of education, and income were the only sociodemographic factors that showed differences in four parks. The users of urban green space were people over the age of 45. 102 – how does one know whether it’s not the wealth that leads to happiness? Response: addressed and corrected. It implies that people living in more expensive homes would have better access to green spaces and express higher satisfaction levels. 108 – urban green what? Response: addressed and corrected. 114 – top concern from what? Response: addressed and corrected. Parks and other public green spaces were ranked as the top concern for students regarding their preferred environments. 116 – ‘activities’ is unclear. Response: addressed and corrected. Additionally, the survey found that students used parks and green areas for activities such as eating lunch, relaxing, and studying (Speake et al., 2013). 114-130 – this seems confused – better to write thematically. Response: addressed and corrected. Parks and other public green spaces were ranked as the top concern for students regarding their preferred environments. Additionally, the survey found that students used parks and green areas for activities such as eating lunch, relaxing, and studying (Speake et al., 2013). Urban green spaces are associated with higher levels of well-being and greater aesthetic value for the elderly than for the younger generation. Adults focused on activities and cited a need for additional recreation-oriented parks for teens where students noticed maintenance issues and worried about their safety (Gearin and Kahle 2006). Those over the age of 50 had the most optimistic views, while those between the ages of 15 and 24 had the most pessimistic views. Ph.D. and professional-level respondents were the most optimistic about urban green spaces’ positive effects on air quality, while middle-school and lower-educational level respondents were the most pessimistic (Ode Sang et al., 2016). On the other hand, undergraduates are more aware than graduates (Gearin and Kahle 2006). There is a gender gap in student knowledge of urban green spaces. Because men are more likely to use parks for sports than women (Gearin and Kahle 2006). They also found that females engage in more physical activity in urban green spaces than males. In addition, females place a higher value on green spaces' aesthetic qualities and report a greater sense of well-being when they are present. Since Muslims pray five times a day, they should demand prayer rooms. Due to prayer hours, they can’t stay as long. They cannot pray by traveling from home to urban green settings. Even when mosques are closed, parkgoers choose a reserved location within the parks. They can practice their religion in urban green spaces (Duan et al., 2018) and spend time with their families. 167 – unclear Response: addressed and corrected. Participants from the multi-ethnic group (British, Pakistani, Bangladeshi, Indian, Eastern European) found a link between biodiversity and their psychological healing experiences. 182 – financial returns unclear Response: addressed and corrected. Green space and landscaping increase property values and land development’s financial returns. Depending on the nature of the project, research indicates that financial returns have increased anywhere from 5 to 15 percent (McMahon, 1996). 202 – developing nations, then big leap to students. A clearer connection needs to be made. Response: addressed and corrected. In recent years, scientists, citizens, and politicians have begun to explore how urban green space is perceived, especially in developing nations. 209 – space needed Response: addressed and corrected. 210-211 – climate change and agricultural dependence is unclear Response: addressed and corrected. Bangladesh is highly vulnerable to the effects of natural disasters and climate change, which significantly affect its agriculture. As a result, the country is heavily dependent on agriculture for its economy and livelihood. 217 – research design approach (explanatory) needs to be supported by literature Response: addressed and corrected. An explanatory research design is used in this study. Explanatory research is a way to find out why something happens when there isn’t much information to go on. It can help people learn more about a certain topic, figure out how or why something is happening, or even predict what will happen in the future (George, 2021). A quantitative methodology is utilized by the researcher throughout the development of this study. According to Muijs (2004), quantitative research is the process of providing explanations for phenomena through the collection and analysis of numerical data using methods that are mathematically based. 229 – conflict of interest? Response: addressed and corrected. This familiarity enhances the research process by facilitating smoother communication and collaboration. Additionally, SUST was chosen based on specific criteria, such as its relevant research facilities, academic expertise, and alignment with the project’s objectives, which were evaluated to ensure the best fit for the study." 265 – why and how? A lot of unqualified assertions are being made Response: addressed and corrected. The students of 2021-22 (1st year), 2020-21(2nd year), 2019-20 (3rd year), 2018-19 (4th year) and 2021–22 (Master’s degree program) were selected for the study because they offer diverse perception on urban green spaces. As students progress through their academic years, their understanding of the topic and their perceptions evolve. By including students at different stages of learning, we can gain a broader view of how perceptions of ur Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Rebuttal Letter_24.doc https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0311033.r002
12 Sep 2024 Decision Letter - Gouranga Lal Dasvarma, Editor Perception of urban green space among university students in Bangladesh PONE-D-24-18205R1 Dear Dr. Shah Md Atiqul Haq, 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, Gouranga Lal Dasvarma, PhD Academic Editor PLOS ONE Additional Editor Comments (optional): Thank you for revising the manuscript by addressing the comments of the two reviewers. I am recommending that the revised manuscript be considered for publication subject to its meeting all other conditions of PLOS ONE. Reviewers' comments: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0311033.r003
Formally Accepted
20 Sep 2024 Acceptance Letter - Gouranga Lal Dasvarma, Editor PONE-D-24-18205R1 PLOS ONE Dear Dr. Atiqul Haq, 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. Gouranga Lal Dasvarma Academic Editor PLOS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0311033.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 .