Spatial analysis of socioeconomic data and its relationship with illicit crops in Nariño-Colombia

Andrés Fernando Grajales-Marín; Fabio Humberto Sepúlveda-Murillo; Alex Tapia; Alexander Tabares

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0316709

Peer Review History

Original SubmissionJune 20, 2024
16 Oct 2024 Decision Letter - Martin Ramirez-Urquidy, Editor PONE-D-24-24934Spatial Analysis of Socioeconomic Data and its Relationship with Illicit Crops in Nariño-ColombiaPLOS ONE Dear Dr. Sepúlveda-Murillo, 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 reviewers have opposing opinion on the merits of the paper. On the one hand, reviewer 1 suggests that the paper provides valuable insights into the complex relationship between socioeconomic factors and cocaine cultivation, and its findings have important implications for policy-making in Colombia. I do agree with reviewer 1´s appreciation. However, reviewer 2 rises some concerns of the paper and provides feedback. I am biased to a Major revision decision, because I think the paper has merits. I find some strengths but I agree with reviewer 2 in some respects. In particular I think the paper lacks of a theoretical background which is hindering the model specification and interpretation of results. You might address this and other concerns in the review, which would improve the paper substantially. When reviewing the comments made by the reviewers, I note that reviewer 2 has used some unprofessional language that fall below the expected standards for professional conduct and communication at PLOS ONE. Please accept our apologies and be assured that this has been escalated to the Editorial Office. Please submit your revised manuscript by Nov 30 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, Martin Ramirez-Urquidy, PhD. Economics Academic Editor PLOS ONE Journal Requirements: 1. When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements. 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 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. 3. Thank you for stating the following financial disclosure: The first author (Andres) received specific funding for this work from Ministerio de Ciencia, Tecnología e Innovación de Colombia. Please state what role the funders took in the study. If the funders had no role, please state: "The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript." If this statement is not correct you must amend it as needed. Please include this amended Role of Funder statement in your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf. 4. When completing the data availability statement of the submission form, you indicated that you will make your data available on acceptance. We strongly recommend all authors decide on a data sharing plan before acceptance, as the process can be lengthy and hold up publication timelines. Please note that, though access restrictions are acceptable now, your entire data will need to be made freely accessible if your manuscript is accepted for publication. This policy applies to all data except where public deposition would breach compliance with the protocol approved by your research ethics board. If you are unable to adhere to our open data policy, please kindly revise your statement to explain your reasoning and we will seek the editor's input on an exemption. Please be assured that, once you have provided your new statement, the assessment of your exemption will not hold up the peer review process. 5. We note that Figures 1, 3 and 4 in your submission contain map 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 present written permission from the copyright holder to publish these figures specifically under the CC BY 4.0 license, or remove the figures from your submission: a. You may seek permission from the original copyright holder of Figures 1, 3 and 4 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: The reviewers have opposing opinion on the merits of the paper. On the one hand, reviewer 1 suggests that the paper provides valuable insights into the complex relationship between socioeconomic factors and cocaine cultivation, and its findings have important implications for policy-making in Colombia. I do agree with reviewer 1´s appreciation. However, reviewer 2 rises some concerns of the paper and provides feedback. I am biased to a Major revision decision, because I think the paper has merits. I find some strengths but I agree with reviewer 2 in some respects. In particular I think the paper lacks of a theoretical background which is hindering the model specification and interpretation of results. You might address this and other concerns in the review, which would improve the paper substantially. [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: No ******** 2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: No ****** 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: 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 research article examines the spatial disparities in socioeconomic conditions in Nariño, Colombia, and their relationship with cocaine cultivation. The study uses various socioeconomic variables and constructs composite indices to analyze the spatial distribution of these conditions. It employs Geographically Weighted Regression (GWR) to model the spatial non-stationarity of factors influencing cocaine production. The study identifies education and homicide rate as significant factors influencing cocaine cultivation. It reveals a strong relationship between low education levels and high levels of cocaine cultivation, particularly in the less developed northwestern part of Nariño. The study also finds a positive correlation between homicide rate and cocaine production, mainly in the northwestern region. The authors suggest that implementing public policies aimed at improving education and social investment in Nariño would be instrumental in mitigating socioeconomic disparities and reducing cocaine cultivation. The key points of this research can be summarized as: - The study used a combination of methods to analyze the spatial patterns of socioeconomic disparities and their relationship with cocaine cultivation in Nariño, Colombia. - It found that socioeconomic conditions vary significantly across different parts of the state. - The study highlights the important role of education and homicide rate in influencing cocaine cultivation. - The authors suggest that targeted interventions are needed to address the issue of socioeconomic disparities and illicit crop cultivation in the region. This study provides valuable insights into the complex relationship between socioeconomic factors and cocaine cultivation, and its findings have important implications for policy-making in Colombia. Reviewer #2: The manuscript would greatly benefit from a native English speaker's proofreading, as it is crucial to ensure the accuracy and clarity of your work. Ensuring the coherence of your document is of utmost importance. I advise you to focus on a single research question, as the current ones lack a cohesive thread. This will significantly improve the readability and quality of your manuscript. In section 3.1, the authors refer to a figure displayed six pages before. There is a pressing concern about constructing indices with data from different years. Authors should promptly address this issue, which could be included in a footnote, to ensure the accuracy and reliability of your work. There is no mention of the spatial weight matrix used for GWR. It is unclear why the authors excluded the rest of the regressors and considered EPI and HOMI. They mention selecting variables based on significance; however, a theoretical background should support them. Conclusions are poor and tedious. This section seems to be an extension of the results section because none of the results is linked to theory or some context. An isolated paragraph mentioning the need for public policy to increase investment in education lacks sense because no documentation in the manuscript supports this affirmation. The authors do not provide data on education investment or something that carries on that idea. ****** 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. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0316709.r001
Revision 1
28 Nov 2024 Author Response General comment from the authors: First, we would like to thank the editor and reviewers for their insightful comments, which have greatly contributed to improving our paper. In what follows, we provide a point-by-point explanation of how we revised the paper to address the issues raised by the reviewers. If the paper still needs improving, we would be very grateful if you would let us know, and we will immediately revise it again. Editor Comments: The reviewers have opposing opinion on the merits of the paper. On the one hand, reviewer 1 suggests that the paper provides valuable insights into the complex relationship between socioeconomic factors and cocaine cultivation, and its findings have important implications for policy-making in Colombia. I do agree with reviewer 1´s appreciation. However, reviewer 2 rises some concerns of the paper and provides feedback. I am biased to a Major revision decision, because I think the paper has merits. I find some strengths but I agree with reviewer 2 in some respects. In particular I think the paper lacks of a theoretical background which is hindering the model specification and interpretation of results. You might address this and other concerns in the review, which would improve the paper substantially. Response: Thanks for your recommendation. We have revised the introduction to follow a typical academic structure for a research article, providing a clearer overview, a justification of the study, a precise formulation of the research question, and a theoretical framework to support the analysis. Moreover, in the new version of the article you can see the other changes introduced throughout the document. Response to Reviewers' Questions Reviewer 1 1. ¿Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English? Response: We have made efforts to ensure that the manuscript is presented in an intelligible manner. We have focused on clarity in both writing and structure, organizing the content in a logical and coherent way to facilitate reader comprehension. Additionally, we have carefully reviewed the text to eliminate ambiguities and improve flow, so that the main ideas and findings are conveyed clearly and accessibly. On the other hand, we acknowledge the importance of clear and accurate language, and we have taken steps to ensure this by having the manuscript thoroughly reviewed by a native English speaker. This review was conducted to refine the text for clarity, coherence, and precision, addressing any potential language nuances to ensure that our findings are communicated as effectively as possible. We trust that these efforts will contribute to the overall quality and readability of our work. Reviewer 2 1. ¿Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions? Response: We have made the necessary adjustments to ensure that the manuscript meets technical and scientific standards in terms of methodology, analysis, and accuracy. We have reviewed and refined our methods to guarantee that they are robust and rigorous, and we have carefully validated the data to ensure its correct use and interpretation. These improvements have been implemented to uphold the highest standards of technical quality and scientific integrity throughout the manuscript. Regarding the second question, the conclusions of the manuscript are fully supported by the data presented in the results. We have carefully ensured that the analysis is consistent with the data, and the interpretation of the findings directly aligns with the evidence provided. No conclusions have been drawn beyond what the data can substantiate, and we have made sure to highlight the key patterns and relationships that emerged from the results. 2. ¿Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Response: The statistical analysis was developed under a rigorous methodological approach, following standard practices in quantitative research to ensure the validity and reliability of the results. The step-by-step approach we followed for the statistical analysis is explicitly outlined in session 2, the methodology. This rigorous approach ensures that the findings are statistically sound and useful for decision making in policy development and illicit crop control in Nariño. 3. ¿Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English? Response: We have made efforts to ensure that the manuscript is presented in an intelligible manner. We have focused on clarity in both writing and structure, organizing the content in a logical and coherent way to facilitate reader comprehension. Additionally, we have carefully reviewed the text to eliminate ambiguities and improve flow, so that the main ideas and findings are conveyed clearly and accessibly. On the other hand, we acknowledge the importance of clear and accurate language, and we have taken steps to ensure this by having the manuscript thoroughly reviewed by a native English speaker. This review was conducted to refine the text for clarity, coherence, and precision, addressing any potential language nuances to ensure that our findings are communicated as effectively as possible. We trust that these efforts will contribute to the overall quality and readability of our work. Response to Reviewers' Comments Reviewer 2 1. The manuscript would greatly benefit from a native English speaker's proofreading, as it is crucial to ensure the accuracy and clarity of your work. Response: Thank you very much for your suggestion. We acknowledge the importance of clear and accurate language, and we have taken steps to ensure this by having the manuscript thoroughly reviewed by a native English speaker. This review was conducted to refine the text for clarity, coherence, and precision, addressing any potential language nuances to ensure that our findings are communicated as effectively as possible. We trust that these efforts will contribute to the overall quality and readability of our work. 2. Ensuring the coherence of your document is of utmost importance. I advise you to focus on a single research question, as the current ones lack a cohesive thread. This will significantly improve the readability and quality of your manuscript. Response: Thanks for this recommendation. As you see in the new introduction we have posed a single research question. This question allows to explore how socioeconomic factors affect coca cultivation in different areas, which gives you scope to analyze the spatial distribution of socioeconomic conditions, identify specific determinants, and observe the consistency of the impact in different areas. Our new question is: ¿To what extent does the spatial distribution of socioeconomic conditions explain cocaine cultivation patterns in the state of Nariño? 3. In section 3.1, the authors refer to a figure displayed six pages before. Response: Thanks for the recommendation, we add one figure show the ubication of Nariño and another figure show the cocaine spatial distribution and road over the state. 4. There is a pressing concern about constructing indices with data from different years. Authors should promptly address this issue, which could be included in a footnote, to ensure the accuracy and reliability of your work. Response: Some, but not all, databases differ in the year of collection, for a fundamental reason, they are databases that come from different sources of information and these sources make their collection at different times. Not all databases of this nature are collected in the same year for our country. However, they are data that do not differ by more than two years, except for Percentage of people formally employed as a percentage of total population which is from 2016. There are a large number of papers in the literature that have this problem. Moreover, the submission guidelines of the Plos One journal are not permitted the footnotes, but we have added one sencence clarifying this point in the last part of section 2.1. 5. There is no mention of the spatial weight matrix used for GWR. Response: As you recommended, we have added one more paragraph in section 2.2.2 (Econometric models) on coefficient estimation where we have mentioned the spatial weight matrix used. 6. It is unclear why the authors excluded the rest of the regressors and considered EPI and HOMI. They mention selecting variables based on significance; however, a theoretical background should support them. Response: Although the variables involved in the study were supported by the literature reviewed, given their possible influence on the dynamics of illicit crops. This does not imply that all of them explain coca production for the state of Nariño. It is well known that the study of phenomena of this type is characterized by the existence of spatial heterogeneity; therefore, a variable that may be significant for any other part of the world may not be so for our study area. Therefore, and in response to your observation, the variables that were finally included in the model were those that were found to be significant using OLR statistical theory. 7. Conclusions are poor and tedious. This section seems to be an extension of the results section because none of the results is linked to theory or some context. An isolated paragraph mentioning the need for public policy to increase investment in education lacks sense because no documentation in the manuscript supports this affirmation. The authors do not provide data on education investment or something that carries on that idea. Response: Thanks for this observation. We have rewritten the conclusions section. The conclusions now include a deeper analysis linked to the theories applied and the recommendations suggested, offering a theoretical and contextualized approach, in accordance with the results of the study. This approach allows the conclusions to be not only an extension of the results, but a grounded interpretation that links the findings to the socioeconomic context of Nariño. On the other hand, when the need for public policies to increase investment in education is mentioned, it is from the point of view of our econometric modeling results, where the relationship of the EPI variable and coca are significant and with a negative sign, indicating that there is a negative relationship between these two variables. This correlation is consistent with existing literature findings, which indicate that cocaine crop production tends to decrease with higher levels of education (Davalos, 2016; Dávalos & Dávalos, 2020; Dávalos et al., 2016; Garcia-Yi, 2014; Vargas & Restrepo-Jaramillo, 2016). And therefore, it is true that we do not provide data on investment in education, since that is not the objective of the article. 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. Response: Sure, we updated our manuscript with the guidelines of style and format. 2. 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. Response: We accepted the recommendation. This information was completed in the resubmission form. We changed: The first author (Andres) received specific funding for this work from Ministerio de Ciencia, Tecnología e Innovación de Colombia. For: AG is supported by Ministerio de Ciencia, Tecnología e Innovación de Colombia grant BPIN 2020000100601 3. Thank you for stating the following financial disclosure: The first author (Andres) received specific funding for this work from Ministerio de Ciencia, Tecnología e Innovación de Colombia. Please state what role the funders took in the study. If the funders had no role, please state: "The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript." If this statement is not correct you must amend it as needed. Please include this amended Role of Funder statement in your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf. Response: Thank you, the statement: "The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript." is correct for us. 4. When completing the data availability statement of the submission form, you indicated that you will make your data available on acceptance. We strongly recommend all authors decide on a data sharing plan before acceptance, as the process can be lengthy and hold up publication timelines. Please note that, though access restrictions are acceptable now, your entire data will need to be made freely accessible if your manuscript is accepted for publication. This policy applies to all data except where public deposition would breach compliance with the protocol approved by your research ethics board. If you are unable to adhere to our open data policy, please kindly revise your statement to explain your reasoning and we will seek the editor's input on an exemption. Please be assured that, once you have provided your new statement, the assessment of your exemption will not hold up the peer review process. Response: We are agree with the recommendation, we will share our data following the next plan: Once the article is accepted, the data will be publicly available in an open account of the repository called GitHub, the link will be provided in the section of the article called Supporting information or data availability. 5. We note that Figures 1, 3 and 4 in your submission contain map 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. Response: We declared these figures (maps) are of our own creation, created from the results of statistical analysis of this work. Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0316709.r002
17 Dec 2024 Decision Letter - Martin Ramirez-Urquidy, Editor Spatial Analysis of Socioeconomic Data and its Relationship with Illicit Crops in Nariño-Colombia PONE-D-24-24934R1 Dear Dr. Sepúlveda-Murillo, 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, Martin Ramirez-Urquidy, PhD. Economics Academic Editor PLOS ONE Additional Editor Comments (optional): Reviewers' comments: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0316709.r003
Formally Accepted
21 Dec 2024 Acceptance Letter - Martin Ramirez-Urquidy, Editor PONE-D-24-24934R1 PLOS ONE Dear Dr. Sepúlveda-Murillo, 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. Martin Ramirez-Urquidy Academic Editor PLOS ONE Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: pone.0316709.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0316709.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 .