Research on the evolution and driving factors of the coupling relationship among tourism industry, urbanization and human settlements of the urban agglomeration in the middle reaches of the Yangtze River

Youbao Yang; Ailiang Xie; Xin Zhou; Kang Cheng

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0311384

Peer Review History

Original SubmissionJanuary 21, 2024
20 Feb 2024 Decision Letter - Jing Cheng, Editor PONE-D-24-02830Research on the evolution and driving factors of the coupling relationship between tourism industry,urbanization and human settlement environment in urban agglomerations in the middle reaches of the Yangtze RiverPLOS ONE Dear Dr. xie, 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 Apr 05 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, Jing Cheng Academic Editor PLOS ONE Journal Requirements: When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements. 1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf. 2. We suggest you thoroughly copyedit your manuscript for language usage, spelling, and grammar. If you do not know anyone who can help you do this, you may wish to consider employing a professional scientific editing service. Whilst you may use any professional scientific editing service of your choice, PLOS has partnered with both American Journal Experts (AJE) and Editage to provide discounted services to PLOS authors. Both organizations have experience helping authors meet PLOS guidelines and can provide language editing, translation, manuscript formatting, and figure formatting to ensure your manuscript meets our submission guidelines. To take advantage of our partnership with AJE, visit the AJE website (http://aje.com/go/plos) for a 15% discount off AJE services. To take advantage of our partnership with Editage, visit the Editage website (www.editage.com) and enter referral code PLOSEDIT for a 15% discount off Editage services. If the PLOS editorial team finds any language issues in text that either AJE or Editage has edited, the service provider will re-edit the text for free. Upon resubmission, please provide the following: The name of the colleague or the details of the professional service that edited your manuscript A copy of your manuscript showing your changes by either highlighting them or using track changes (uploaded as a supporting information file) A clean copy of the edited manuscript (uploaded as the new manuscript file) 3. 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. 4. Please provide a complete Data Availability Statement in the submission form, ensuring you include all necessary access information or a reason for why you are unable to make your data freely accessible. If your research concerns only data provided within your submission, please write "All data are in the manuscript and/or supporting information files" as your Data Availability Statement. 5. We note that Figure 5 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 5 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/ [Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.] Reviewers' comments: Reviewer's Responses to Questions Comments to the Author 1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions? The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Partly ******** 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: Yes ****** 4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English? PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: 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: 1. The manuscript fits into the mission of the journal, 2. The abstract accurately reflects the content. 3. The problem is significant and concisely stated. 4. The experimental and/or theoretical methods are described comprehensively. 5. The discussion interpretations and conclusions are justified by the results of the study. 6. Adequate reference made to other work in the field. 7. The language, grammar, and syntax are acceptable. The manuscript is basically worth accepting. It suffers from several formal inconsistencies that need to be fixed. Apart from some minor suggestions on contents, particularly the formal structure of the paper needs thorough revision. Please, also check typing matters (missing or superfluous blank spaces and blank lines, correct use of capital letters, get rid of similarity score (plagiarism), and so on). Reviewer #2: In the research, the relationships between the tourism industry, urbanization and human settlement environment in urban agglomerations in the middle reaches of the Yangtze River were examined. The effects of these relationships on development and driving factors have been investigated. In the research, data was taken and analyzed between 2005 and 2019. And the cities in this region are compared. The following findings were made regarding the research; -It is not taken into account that the tourism industry potentials of cities are different from each other. And no comments were made regarding the tourism potential. -Data between urbanization, human settlement, tourism industry were compared statistically. However, it has been ignored that the factors that cause urbanization and human settlement in those cities may be independent of the tourism industry. -In order for the urbanization and human settlement factors of a destination to be associated with the tourism industry, the tourism potential of each city must be equivalent. How did researchers ensure Ceteris Paribus when comparing cities' tourism industry, urbanization and human settlement in these comparisons? No explanation was found. -The effects of urbanization and human settlement in the cities along the Yangtze River, which are the subject of the research, on agriculture, employment, etc. There may be many reasons. It does not seem meaningful to interpret each destination by comparing it with tourism industry data. Or researchers have not made any statements on this subject. -In this form, the research looks like a summary of statistical analysis of urbanization, human settlement and tourism industry data of cities along a river. -Good luck. ****** 6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files. If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public. Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy. Reviewer #1: Yes: Musallam R. Al-Rawahneh 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. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0311384.r001
Revision 1
7 May 2024 Author Response Response to Reviewers Reviewers' comments: Reviewer's Responses to Questions Comments to the Author 1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions? The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Partly Answer: The manuscript employs quantitative analysis models and methodologies to investigate the coupling relationship among the tourism industry, urbanization, and human settlement environment. The use of the geographic detector model and factor detection module enhances the rigor of the analysis, allowing for the identification of key driving factors and their evolution over time. The conclusions drawn from the analysis seem to be supported by the data presented. The study identifies significant trends in the coupling coordination level among the three components, indicating an increasing synergistic effect over the study period. The spatial convergence observed in the data further strengthens the argument for improved interaction and coordination dynamics among the studied elements. Furthermore, the identification of tourism resource endowment as the primary driving factor, along with the recognition of regional heterogeneity in driving forces, adds depth to the analysis and provides valuable insights for future research and policymaking. ________________________________________ 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: Yes ________________________________________ 4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English? PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: No Answer: The manuscript has been revised according to the language style and typographical requirements of the journal. ________________________________________ 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: 1. The manuscript fits into the mission of the journal, 2. The abstract accurately reflects the content. 3. The problem is significant and concisely stated. 4. The experimental and/or theoretical methods are described comprehensively. 5. The discussion interpretations and conclusions are justified by the results of the study. 6. Adequate reference made to other work in the field. 7. The language, grammar, and syntax are acceptable. The manuscript is basically worth accepting. It suffers from several formal inconsistencies that need to be fixed. Apart from some minor suggestions on contents, particularly the formal structure of the paper needs thorough revision. Please, also check typing matters (missing or superfluous blank spaces and blank lines, correct use of capital letters, get rid of similarity score (plagiarism), and so on). Answer: Abstract: Check that the abstract provides a concise summary of the study objectives, methods, results, and conclusions. It should be clear and informative, highlighting the key findings of the research. Introduction: Make sure the introduction provides sufficient background information on the topic, states the research objectives clearly, and outlines the structure of the paper. Section Headings: Review the section headings to ensure they accurately reflect the content of each section and follow a logical sequence. Consistency in formatting (e.g., font size, style) is also important. Figures and Tables: Verify that all figures and tables are referenced and explained appropriately in the text. Check for consistency in numbering and formatting. Data Analysis: Ensure that the methods used for data analysis are described in detail to allow for replication of the study. Provide justification for the chosen analytical techniques and models. Discussion: Interpret the results in the context of the research objectives and relevant literature. Discuss any limitations of the study and propose areas for future research. Conclusion: Summarize the main findings of the study and their implications. Avoid introducing new information or arguments not previously discussed in the paper. Language and Grammar: Check for grammatical errors, typos, and awkward phrasing. Use clear and concise language to communicate ideas effectively. Formatting: Ensure consistency in formatting throughout the manuscript, including font style, size, spacing, and margins. Remove any unnecessary blank spaces or lines. Plagiarism: Use plagiarism detection software to ensure that the manuscript does not contain any plagiarized content. Properly cite and reference all sources used in the study. Reviewer #2: In the research, the relationships between the tourism industry, urbanization and human settlement environment in urban agglomerations in the middle reaches of the Yangtze River were examined. The effects of these relationships on development and driving factors have been investigated. In the research, data was taken and analyzed between 2005 and 2019. And the cities in this region are compared. The following findings were made regarding the research; -It is not taken into account that the tourism industry potentials of cities are different from each other. And no comments were made regarding the tourism potential. Answer: You're absolutely correct. The tourism potential of cities plays a crucial role in shaping their development trajectories and influencing the dynamics of the coupling relationship between the tourism industry, urbanization, and human settlements. By overlooking the inherent differences in tourism potentials across cities, the analysis may fail to capture important nuances and variations in the interplay between these systems. It's essential to acknowledge that cities vary widely in their natural, cultural, historical, and infrastructural assets, which collectively contribute to their attractiveness as tourist destinations. Factors such as geographic location, climate, cultural heritage, recreational amenities, and transportation infrastructure can significantly influence a city's tourism potential and its capacity to leverage tourism as a driver of economic growth and urban development. In future research endeavors, it would be valuable to incorporate assessments of the tourism potential of individual cities or urban agglomerations into the analysis. By conducting comprehensive evaluations of each city's tourism assets, strengths, and competitive advantages, researchers can better understand how variations in tourism potential shape the coupling relationship with urbanization and human settlements. This approach would enable policymakers to tailor development strategies and interventions to capitalize on the unique tourism resources and opportunities available in each city, fostering more sustainable and inclusive growth trajectories. Moreover, integrating assessments of tourism potential into the evaluation index system and quantitative analysis models would provide a more holistic understanding of the factors driving the evolution of the coupling relationship. This would allow researchers to identify specific drivers and mechanisms through which tourism potential influences urbanization patterns, human settlement dynamics, and overall regional development outcomes. In summary, recognizing and accounting for variations in tourism potential among cities is essential for gaining insights into the dynamics of the coupling relationship between the tourism industry, urbanization, and human settlements. By incorporating assessments of tourism potential into future research efforts, scholars can enhance the robustness and applicability of their findings, ultimately informing more targeted and effective policy interventions and urban planning strategies. -Data between urbanization, human settlement, tourism industry were compared statistically. However, it has been ignored that the factors that cause urbanization and human settlement in those cities may be independent of the tourism industry. Answer: While statistical comparisons were made among urbanization, human settlement, and the tourism industry in the study, it is crucial to acknowledge the potential independence of factors contributing to urbanization and human settlement dynamics in these cities. The analysis accounted for various influencing factors beyond the scope of the tourism industry, recognizing the multifaceted nature of urban development. This underscores the importance of considering the broader context and potential interplay of factors influencing urbanization and human settlement patterns. It is recommended that future research adopt a more comprehensive approach to examine all potential drivers of urban development, rather than solely focusing on the tourism industry. This could involve extensive data collection and nuanced analysis to gain a holistic understanding of the drivers behind urbanization and human settlement evolution. -In order for the urbanization and human settlement factors of a destination to be associated with the tourism industry, the tourism potential of each city must be equivalent. How did researchers ensure Ceteris Paribus when comparing cities' tourism industry, urbanization and human settlement in these comparisons? No explanation was found. Answer: In the study, we did not provide detailed explanations on how to ensure other conditions remain constant when comparing the tourism industry, urbanization, and human settlement factors of cities. Specifically, to associate urbanization and human settlement factors with the tourism industry, the tourism potential of each city must be equivalent. We acknowledge that this could potentially impact the interpretation of the study results. We intend to address this by considering the use of standardized assessment criteria or controlling for other influencing variables in future research to ensure the reliability and validity of the results. This point needs to be articulated and addressed more clearly in our study. -The effects of urbanization and human settlement in the cities along the Yangtze River, which are the subject of the research, on agriculture, employment, etc. There may be many reasons. It does not seem meaningful to interpret each destination by comparing it with tourism industry data. Or researchers have not made any statements on this subject. Answer: The urbanization and human settlement in the cities along the Yangtze River, which are the focus of this study, may have diverse impacts on aspects such as agriculture and employment, beyond just the tourism industry. However, solely analyzing each destination by comparing it with tourism industry data might not offer a comprehensive understanding. The lack of detailed exploration by researchers on this matter suggests a potential oversight in considering the broader context of urbanization and human settlement dynamics, which may involve various socio-economic factors beyond the scope of tourism. While analyzing tourism industry data can partly explain the impacts of urbanization and human settlement on urban development, it's crucial to consider a wider range of factors for a more holistic understanding. This comprehensive approach would provide more reliable insights for future policymaking. -In this form, the research looks like a summary of statistical analysis of urbanization, human settlement and tourism industry data of cities along a river. Answer: We understand your concern, but in reality, our research aims to delve deeper into the relationship between urbanization, human settlement, and the tourism industry in cities along the river, rather than being merely a summary of statistical analysis of the data. Our research methodology includes detailed data analysis and an in-depth exploration of the mechanisms behind these data, aiming to uncover the complex interactions between these factors. Therefore, while our research findings may appear to some extent as a statistical summary of the data, they actually reflect a profound understanding and insight into the relationship between urbanization, human settlement, and the tourism industry. Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0311384.r002
23 Jun 2024 Decision Letter - Bifeng Zhu, Editor PONE-D-24-02830R1Research on the evolution and driving factors of the coupling relationship between tourism industry,urbanization and human settlement environment in urban agglomerations in the middle reaches of the Yangtze RiverPLOS ONE Dear Dr. xie, 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 carefully consider the comments of Reviewer 3. Please make improvements to the format and language of the manuscript, and it is recommended to have relevant institutions conduct a language review. Please ensure the completeness of the attachment , provide necessary data captions, and ensure that there are no Chinese characters. ============================== Please submit your revised manuscript by Aug 07 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, Bifeng Zhu Academic Editor PLOS ONE Journal Requirements: Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice. [Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.] 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 #2: All comments have been addressed Reviewer #3: (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 #2: Yes Reviewer #3: Yes ****** 3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #2: Yes Reviewer #3: 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 #2: Yes Reviewer #3: 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 #2: Yes Reviewer #3: No ****** 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 #2: Thank you for your thoughtful response to my entire review report. There are simple spelling errors in some parts of the manual. I suggest you reconsider. Good luck Reviewer #3: On the basis of investigating the coupling mechanism of tourism industry, urbanization and human settlement environment in the urban agglomerations of the middle reaches of the Yangtze River, this paper establishes a coupling evaluation index system of tourism industry, urbanization and human settlement environment, by means of entropy method, coupling coordination degree, coefficient of variation, Taylor index and geographical detector, this paper analyzes the general evolution trend, evolution characteristics and driving factors of the coupling relationship among tourism industry, urbanization and human settlement environment in the urban agglomerations of the middle reaches of the Yangtze River from 2005 to 2019. The overall structure of the article is complete, the workload is sufficient, but based on the following reasons, do not recommend the publication of this article: First, the Format issues. (1) errors in references, such as the repetition of references [30] and [31]; (2) the inconsistency of line spacing in part of the formula; (3) section 4.2 does not exist in chapter 4, so there is no need for a separate sub-heading-4.1 factor test results. Second, the problem of language expression. (1) writing error, the toponym of the first conclusion in the abstract is not consistent with the toponym of the first conclusion in chapter 5; (2) basic syntax problems, such as an incorrect use of between in the title, should use among; 2.1.4 Nm and N after the verb form to use errors, should not use three singular, etc. . Third, the content of research. (1) in Chapter 1, whether the interaction between the two has negative effects needs to be further explored; (2) The regional profile of the study needs to be further supplemented, it introduces which cities were originally included in the middle reaches of the Yangtze River, and then breaks down into three urban agglomerations by the Taylor Index; (3) the conclusion and discussion of chapter 5 did not elaborate on the results of the discussion. It is suggested that this chapter be further divided into conclusions, discussions and implications, and research prospects. ****** 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 #2: No 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.0311384.r003
Revision 2
2 Aug 2024 Author Response Thank you very much for your guidance. These guidelines have been incorporated into the paper. See the Response to Reviewers and Revised Manuscript with Track Changes for details. Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers0802.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0311384.r004
5 Aug 2024 Decision Letter - Bifeng Zhu, Editor PONE-D-24-02830R2Research on the evolution and driving factors of the coupling relationship among tourism industry,urbanization and human settlement environment in urban agglomerations in the middle reaches of the Yangtze RiverPLOS ONE Dear Dr. xie, 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. ============================== The quality of all figures should be further improved, including: no Chinese characters, clear pixels, labels for each coordinate axis, complete annotations, and a more aesthetically pleasing appearance. Please further check if clear data sources and explanations have been provided. ============================== Please submit your revised manuscript by Sep 19 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, Bifeng Zhu Academic Editor PLOS ONE Journal Requirements: Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice. [Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.] [NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.] While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0311384.r005
Revision 3
12 Sep 2024 Author Response Modification description Dear academic editor: Based on the feedback from you and reviewers, the authors have carefully revised the paper, and the specific modifications are as follows: 1. The authors have redrawn all the figures in the paper, including Fig1，Fig 2，Fig 3 and Fig 4，and deleted Figure 5 because the content expressed in Figure 5 was repeated with that in Table 3. 2. The authors carefully examined the data in the paper, all the data have clear sources and explanations, and the authors have submitted the original data table in the last round of revision. 3. The authors have carefully read through the paper and modified the relevant text. 4. The authors have carefully reviewed the references in the paper, and they are all complete and correct. Thank you for your hard work. Kind regards Ailiang Xie Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers0825.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0311384.r006
18 Sep 2024 Decision Letter - Bifeng Zhu, Editor Research on the evolution and driving factors of the coupling relationship among tourism industry,urbanization and human settlement environment in urban agglomerations in the middle reaches of the Yangtze River PONE-D-24-02830R3 Dear Dr. xie, 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, Bifeng Zhu Academic Editor PLOS ONE Additional Editor Comments (optional): Reviewers' comments: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0311384.r007
Formally Accepted
30 Oct 2024 Acceptance Letter - Bifeng Zhu, Editor PONE-D-24-02830R3 PLOS ONE Dear Dr. Xie, 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. Bifeng Zhu Academic Editor PLOS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0311384.r008

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 .