Dear Dr. Wondim,

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 May 10 2025 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.

• 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,

Said Muhammad

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. Your ethics statement should only appear in the Methods section of your manuscript. If your ethics statement is written in any section besides the Methods, please move it to the Methods section and delete it from any other section. Please ensure that your ethics statement is included in your manuscript, as the ethics statement entered into the online submission form will not be published alongside your manuscript.

[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?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

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

The PLOS Data policy

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

Reviewer #1: General Comments: Typo mistakes, grammatical and syntax corrections are required in certain places

Abstract:

The abstract is satisfactory.

Introduction:

The introduction provides sufficient details and context.

Materials and Methods:

The rationale for choosing specific post-hoc tests, such as Fisher’s LSD, should be explained in more detail. Additionally, it would be beneficial to briefly discuss alternative methods, like Dunn’s test, to help readers understand the reasoning behind the choice.

More clarity is needed regarding the specific statistical functions used in each statistical package. This will improve the reproducibility of the analysis by other researchers. It would be helpful to explicitly mention which software and versions were used, and provide clear references to the specific functions applied for each part of the analysis.

While the overall framework for the scoring system is clear, more detail is required on the rationale behind the system, including the criteria for weighting different components. Additionally, further explanation of how the indices were validated would improve the transparency of the method.

How was the accuracy of the Integrated Lake Wetland Condition Index (ILWCI) validated? Providing details on the validation process will enhance the credibility of the index.

To improve transparency and interpretation, it would be helpful to include a data dictionary or a table summarizing the raw values and scoring systems for each parameter. This would allow readers to better understand the scoring process and the data being used.

Results and Discussion:

Figure 1: This figure needs improvement. Enhancing the clarity, labels, and possibly adding more detail will make it more informative and easier to interpret.

Figure 2: The resolution of this figure should be improved to ensure that all details are clear and legible.

The discussion section would benefit from an acknowledgment of the limitations of the methods used in the study as well as the potential limitations of the proposed Index.

Conclusions:

The conclusions are satisfactory.

Supplementary Materials:

All figures in the Supplementary needs enhancement, the figures shoudl be readable and in clear resolution

Reviewer #2: General Comment:

In the manuscript, an integrated wetland condition index (IWCI) system was tried to develop for lacustrine for a wetland in Ethiopia based on the four conditions of the existing wetlands hydrology, chemistry, water quality and biota using some sort of simulation modelling. The research is appealing, but the quality of information, applied methodologies and findings have major flaws, which need to be validated before the final decision. Some of the specific comments are as follows:

- Abstract- please rewrite the abstract with this flow: issue/purpose, methodology applied, major findings, concluding remarks with a main recommendation. In its present form, it’s very segregated and couldn’t get the outcomes.

- Literature presented in the manuscript must be cited from the recently published literature. Still there information regarding the decision making system is missing in the existing literature. Gap analysis needs to be clearly mentioned at the last of the introduction session.

- Is this the only study done of this specific wetland? There is no other published literature mentioned in the present manuscript

- Why only these few parameters are considered to be investigated? There are other important parameters too?

- The sampling procedure needs to be given in details

- Why could be the sources of these nutrients?

- How the information or data is reliable and reflect for the whole year? The sampling is performed once in a year.

- Continue monitoring can provide the overall conditions of the wetland health and this is one of the missing point in the present study.

**********

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.

Development and use of integrated wetland condition index for lacustrine fringe wetlands of Lake Tana, Northwest Ethiopia

PONE-D-24-52278R1

Dear Dr. Wondim,

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,

Said Muhammad

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

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

The PLOS Data policy

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

**********

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

**********