Searching for the heritage of the Second Sino-Japanese War: A study on the site selection strategy of the defence industrial buildings of the National Resources Commission (1937–1945)

Yangjie Wu

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0311436

Peer Review History

Original SubmissionApril 18, 2024
24 Jul 2024 Decision Letter - Juha-Antti Lamberg, Editor PONE-D-24-15627Searching for the Heritage of the Second Sino-Japanese War: A Study on the Site Selection Strategy of the Defence Industrial Buildings of the National Resources Commission (1937-1945)PLOS ONE Dear Dr. yangjie, 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 Sep 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, Juha-Antti Lamberg, Ph.D. 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 your Methods section, please provide additional information regarding the permits you obtained for the work. Please ensure you have included the full name of the authority that approved the field site access and, if no permits were required, a brief statement explaining why. 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. We note that your Data Availability Statement is currently as follows: [If the data are all contained within the manuscript and/or Supporting Information files, enter the following: All relevant data are within the manuscript and its Supporting Information files.] Please confirm at this time whether or not your submission contains all raw data required to replicate the results of your study. Authors must share the “minimal data set” for their submission. PLOS defines the minimal data set to consist of the data required to replicate all study findings reported in the article, as well as related metadata and methods (https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-minimal-data-set-definition). For example, authors should submit the following data: - The values behind the means, standard deviations and other measures reported; - The values used to build graphs; - The points extracted from images for analysis. Authors do not need to submit their entire data set if only a portion of the data was used in the reported study. If your submission does not contain these data, please either upload them as Supporting Information files or deposit them to a stable, public repository and provide us with the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers. For a list of recommended repositories, please see https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/recommended-repositories. If there are ethical or legal restrictions on sharing a de-identified data set, please explain them in detail (e.g., data contain potentially sensitive information, data are owned by a third-party organization, etc.) and who has imposed them (e.g., an ethics committee). Please also provide contact information for a data access committee, ethics committee, or other institutional body to which data requests may be sent. If data are owned by a third party, please indicate how others may request data access. 5. We note that [Figures 1,2,4,5,8,10,11 and 14] 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 Figures 1,2,4,5,8,10,11 and 14 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/ 6. 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: Thank you for the interesting piece of research focused on industrial archeology of Chinese military industry. The Reviewer has evaluated your research as appropriate and I agree: in your research field this is a solid piece of research and I support its publishing. Please follow the instructions of Reviewer 1 and re-submit following PLOS procedure. [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 ******** 2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: N/A ****** 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 ****** 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 ****** 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: THANK YOU FOR AN INTERESTING PAPER. AS THE PAPER CONTAINS A LOT OF COMPLEX FIGURES, I WOULD PUT MORE EFFORT ON OPENING UP THESE FIGURES IN THE TEXT. THAT WOULD MAKE THE FIGURE MORE UNDERSTANDABLE TO THE READER. WHAT IS MORE, I WOULD FOCUS THE DISCUSSION SECTION OF THE PAPER MORE ON THE CONCRETE ANSWERS TO THE RESEARCH QUESTIONS THAT THE PAPER POSED. ****** 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 ******** [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.0311436.r001
Revision 1
28 Aug 2024 Author Response Responses to the comments from editors and reviewers On behalf of all the contributing authors, I would like to express our sincere appreciation of your letter and reviewers’ constructive comments concerning our article entitled “Searching for the Heritage of the Second Sino-Japanese War: A Study on the Site Selection Strategy of the Defence Industrial Buildings of the National Resources Commission (1937-1945)” (Manuscript PONE-D-24-1562). These comments are all valuable and helpful for improving our article. According to the reviewer's comments, we have made some modifications to our manuscript. We have studied them carefully and the revised contents are highlighted in ORANGE colour in the revised manuscript (Manuscript-R1). All reviewers’ comments are responded to below point by point. If there are any other modifications we could make, we would like very much to modify them and we really appreciate your help. 1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. R1: Thank you for your reminder. We have reviewed the manuscript style again to ensure it conforms to PLOS ONE’s style requirements. We also refer to papers previously published in journals to ensure that the draft meets the requirements of the journal. 2. In your Methods section, please provide additional information regarding the permits you obtained for the work. Please ensure you have included the full name of the authority that approved the field site access and, if no permits were required, a brief statement explaining why. R2: Thank you for your reminder. In section 4.1, Analytical methods, the field research situation is explained, and the reasons for not requiring an institutional work permit are expounded. Detailed modifications are also provided in the revised manuscript as following: “In the course of fieldwork, it is not necessary to obtain additional work permits from relevant agencies. This is mainly due to the following reasons: After a large number of old monomer buildings were demolished, the land was transformed into urban construction land, so that each case was located in an open space; Some of the buildings are located outside the core site and do not require a survey permit.” 3. We note that the grant information you provided in the ‘Funding Information’ and ‘Financial Disclosure’ sections do not match. R3: Many thanks to the editors for their comments on the funding information. I explain the funding situation in the "Funding Statement" section at the back of the manuscript as following: “This research was funded by the National Natural Science Foundation of China, a grant. Number 5197847.” 4. Please confirm at this time whether or not your submission contains all raw data required to replicate the results of your study. Authors must share the “minimal data set” for their submission. R4: Thanks to the editors for their comments on the research data. The minimum data of the study is the evaluation score of each sample. The authors provide the research data in the form of attachments. This attachment is a data sheet about the evaluation score of 28 samples. See the "Supporting Information" section of the manuscript. 5. We note that [Figures 1,2,4,5,8,10,11 and 14] in your submission contain [map/satellite] images which may be copyrighted. R5: Thank you for your reminder. In accordance with your suggestions, I have changed all the images of maps or satellite images based on USGS database and China Open Standard Map database. Some images with copyright disputes were deleted. It is worth reminding that the on-site photos in the manuscript are taken by myself, and there is no copyright problem. 6. 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. R6: Thank you for your reminder. The author reviewed all the references in the manuscript and found that there was no retraction of the cited papers. 7. reviewer #1: thank you for an interesting paper. As the paper contains a lot of complex figures, I would put more effort on opening up these figures in the text. That would make the figure more understandable to the reader. R7: Thanks for the reviewer’s suggestion and we think this is an excellent suggestion. We have added a significantly more detailed description of the above questions to make the figure more understandable. Detailed modifications are also provided in the revised manuscript as following: “The pre-war and wartime separation points were set in August 1938 because, until then, Central China had been considered a safe zone.” (Line 204 to 205 in Section 4) “The whole research process is divided into four stages (Fig 3). The first stage is the data collection stage. For the sorted research samples, the historical and current data are sorted out, mainly including historical documents, land expropriation plans, plant layout plans, field images and other materials. The second stage is the sample analysis stage, which mainly includes three aspects: historical location judgment, site feature construction and site selection element evaluation. The third stage is to study the results, focusing on the selection of single factor and the same industry for comparison and analysis. The final conclusion responds to the research questions and explores the NRC's pre-war and wartime site selection strategies.” (Line 213 to 222 in Section 4) “After determining the location of the factory, all kinds of spatial element information were sorted out, and the basic data of the sample were supplemented and verified by combining the results of on-site investigation. On the one hand, scaling down means the change from the macroscopic map perspective to the microscopic site perspective, and it is also the change from the two-dimensional plane to the three-dimensional picture. On the other hand, the combination of detailed environmental elements can enrich the cognitive picture of the site.” (Line 270 to 276 in Section 4.3.) “Among them, Qiling Coal Mine Company mainly provides power fuel for the Hunan-Guangxi Railway, and becomes an important refueling station in the rear.” (Line 338 to 340 in Section 5.2.1.) “Excluding the three hydroelectric power stations, among the 25 factories, only the prewar Xiangtan Coal Mine Company, Szechuan Petroleum Prospecting Corporation (Fig 8), and Antimony Administration were not close to the water shore, because the above three samples are extremely dependent on the distribution of minerals.” (Line 349 to 352 in Section 5.2.2.) 8. What is more, I would focus the discussion section of the paper more on the concrete answers to the research questions that the paper posed. R8: Many thanks to the reviewers for the helpful comment. We have made changes to the manuscript and detailed modifications are also provided in the revised manuscript as following: “The first is to answer the question about the preservation of the remains of industrial buildings. Hunan and Chongqing, as the key areas of NRC during the Anti-Japanese War, are not very optimistic about the preservation of factory remains in these two areas. In the field investigation, it was found that few industrial remains were completely preserved, and architectural remains could be found in the samples of hydraulic power stations and later developed into large-scale industrial plants, such as Lung Chi Ho Waterpower Project and Central Electrical Manufacturing Works. A small number of examples, such as the Xiangjiang Electricity Works, continue the war-era industry, but the buildings have long since been demolished. A large number of samples located on the outskirts of the city no longer exist, and there are no corresponding markers in the site to awaken historical memories.” (Line 407 to 417 in Section 6.) “Through the field investigation in Hunan and Chongqing, it is found that there are still some remnants of defence industrial buildings in urban areas and towns, and these buildings have not been fully excavated and protected. Field investigation found that although a small number of buildings have been preserved due to the continuation of the industry, and this part is also listed as a provincial cultural relic protection unit, a large number of architectural remains have died out with the expansion of the city, lacking the mark of historical memory. In the case that the material form of the city cannot be changed, the virtual reality scene can be considered to restore the original industrial production scene and fully activate the site.” (Line 494 to 502 in Section 5.2.2.) The author tried our best to improve the manuscript and made some changes. We appreciate for Editors/Reviewers’ warm work earnestly, and hope the correction will meet with approval. Once again, thank you very much for your comments and suggestions. Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Responses to the comments from editors and reviewers.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0311436.r002
19 Sep 2024 Decision Letter - Juha-Antti Lamberg, Editor Searching for the Heritage of the Second Sino-Japanese War: A Study on the Site Selection Strategy of the Defence Industrial Buildings of the National Resources Commission (1937-1945) PONE-D-24-15627R1 Dear Dr. yangjie, 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, Juha-Antti Lamberg, Ph.D. Academic Editor PLOS ONE Additional Editor Comments (optional): Reviewers' comments: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0311436.r003
Formally Accepted
26 Sep 2024 Acceptance Letter - Juha-Antti Lamberg, Editor PONE-D-24-15627R1 PLOS ONE Dear Dr. Wu, 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. Juha-Antti Lamberg Academic Editor PLOS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0311436.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 .