PONE-D-24-38432Small hydropower plants and livelihoods of the local population in rural VietnamPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Nguyen,

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.

==============================

ACADEMIC EDITOR COMMENTS:

The study is interesting and the obtained results may useful for further activities or applications in the specified area. However, the manuscript preparation is not well. The manuscript organization should strictly adhere to the authors guidelines of the journal.  Accordingly, authors should revise the manuscript under the headings of Introduction, Materials and Methods, Results, and Discussion sections only.

The introduction is too vague and elaborated. Study background information should be very clear and more specific to the study objectives. Please remove all subheadings, figures, equations and broad literature review in the introduction section. Authors should minimize the introduction section.

Please revise the other sections strictly with the headings “Materials and Methods, Results, and Discussion sections and avoid too general statements.

Study conclusions are not clear in the manuscript. Please revise the conclusion section with study highlights and findings significance. Remove elaborated descriptions from the conclusion.

==============================

Please submit your revised manuscript by Nov 25 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,

S Ezhil Vendan, 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. Thank you for stating the following financial disclosure:

“German Research Foundation”

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.

3. Thank you for stating the following in the Acknowledgments Section of your manuscript:

“This study relies on data from the long-term project No. 20220831434900116103, funded by the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG). For more detailed information, see http://www.tvsep.de”

We note that you have provided funding information that is currently declared in your Funding Statement. However, funding information should not appear in the Acknowledgments section or other areas of your manuscript. We will only publish funding information present in the Funding Statement section of the online submission form.

Please remove any funding-related text from the manuscript and let us know how you would like to update your Funding Statement. Currently, your Funding Statement reads as follows:

“German Research Foundation”

Please include your amended statements within 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 to 2,3 and 4 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 to 2,3 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 study is interesting and the obtained results may useful for further activities or applications in the specified area. However, the manuscript preparation is not well. The manuscript organization should strictly adhere to the authors guidelines of the journal. Accordingly, authors should revise the manuscript under the headings of Introduction, Materials and Methods, Results, and Discussion sections only.

The introduction is too vague and elaborated. Study background information should be very clear and more specific to the study objectives. Please remove all subheadings, figures, equations and broad literature review in the introduction section. Authors should minimize the introduction section.

Please revise the other sections strictly with the headings “Materials and Methods, Results, and Discussion sections and avoid too general statements.

Study conclusions are not clear in the manuscript. Please revise the conclusion section with study highlights and findings significance. Remove elaborated descriptions from the conclusion.

[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: I Don't Know

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: Dear Author,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript. Your study on the impact of small hydropower plants (HPPs) on rural livelihoods in Vietnam provides valuable insights into an important and under-researched area. By leveraging a large panel dataset and focusing on the effects of small HPPs, your research addresses critical gaps in the current literature.

To enhance the overall clarity and effectiveness of your manuscript, I have outlined a set of observations and suggestions relevant to various sections of your study, including the introduction, methodology, results, and conclusions. These recommendations are intended to refine and strengthen your work. Please review the following points to improve your manuscript.

I suggest change the word hydropower in Keywords: Hydropower because is on the title.

Use third-person perspective throughout the text to maintain a formal and objective tone.

Intoduction

[1] The motivation could be strengthened by providing more specific examples or recent data on the impact of HPPs, particularly focusing on small HPPs, to highlight the current relevance of the research.

[2] It would be beneficial to explicitly state how the study's findings could influence policy or practical applications. Additionally, briefly outlining the main findings in the introduction could further emphasize the study's contribution.

Data and Methodoloy

[3]The description is adequate but could be improved by specifying the exact timeframe covered by the TVSEP dataset. Although you mention the use of data from 2007 to 2017, providing specific dates of data collection, if available, would be beneficial.

[4] The description of the MRFI dataset is clear. It would be helpful to mention if the dataset is regularly updated and how current the data are. This will support the temporal validity of your results.

[5] The methodology for merging data using GPS and ArcGIS is well-explained. You might enhance this section by briefly describing how data quality was ensured during the merging process and the accuracy of GPS coordinates. This will bolster confidence in your results.

[6] In the section about using ArcGIS, you mention that results are transferred to Stata for analysis. Adding details on how data conversion was managed and if there were any significant challenges would be beneficial.

[7] The details on agricultural variables are good, but you could add specific examples of how variables like "agricultural shocks" and "expected number of droughts" were measured. Clarifying these points will improve transparency and reproducibility.

[8] When calculating poverty indices and Gini coefficients, it would be helpful to provide more information on the poverty threshold used and the definition. This will contextualize the results.

[9] The tables provide a useful overview, but a more detailed analysis of observed trends would be beneficial. For instance, explaining why changes in cultivated land area and agricultural income are significant or not can offer deeper insights into the results.

[10] The explanation of regression models is clear but could be improved by detailing how control variables were selected and why they are relevant to the study. Additionally, briefly explaining why fixed effects models were chosen and how they help control for unobserved variables would add rigor.

[11] Providing justification for using cluster-robust standard errors at the village level would also strengthen the methodology.

Results and Discussion

[12] Clearly explain why results differ between the overall sample and Dak Lak.

[13] Provide more context on how socio-economic variables like education, gender, and age of household heads influence outcomes related to HPPs.

[14]Compare findings more thoroughly with previous studies, such as Duflo and Pande (2007), highlighting both similarities and differences.

[15] Discuss why some results are significant in one province but not in others, and the possible reasons for insignificant results.

[16] Expand on the robustness of the results by detailing how robustness checks address potential endogeneity issues and other concerns.

[17] Analyze in more detail how HPPs impact upstream and downstream populations differently, including specific examples or case studies.

[18] Improve the visual presentation of data, such as using clearer graphs or tables, and ensure they are well-labeled and easy to interpret.

[19] Discuss selection bias more explicitly, including how it was addressed and its potential impact on the results.

Identify specific areas for future research based on current findings and limitations, and suggest additional methodological approaches.

Conclusion

[20] Clearly articulate how the findings on small HPPs compare with those on large HPPs, beyond noting that small HPPs show no significant negative effects on upstream populations.

[21]Provide a more detailed explanation of the specific environmental impacts of small HPPs and compare these impacts with those of large HPPs.

[22]Discuss the implications of the observed positive effects of small HPPs on downstream populations in the context of their overall benefit compared to large HPPs.

[23]Elaborate on how the results might influence policy recommendations for promoting small HPPs, including specific measures to mitigate potential negative impacts.

[24] Address the gap in understanding regarding the relationship between HPPs and migration, and suggest how future research could explore this aspect in more detail.

[25] Highlight any limitations of the current study and how they might affect the interpretation of results, including the scope of the panel dataset and potential biases.

Reviewer #2: General comments

This manuscript small hydropower plants and livelihoods of the local population in rural Vietnam. There is a lot to like about the research presented in this article. Therefore, the following comments intend to support the authors to ensure the proper delivery of the research presented in this article:

1- Introduction

• The introduction lacks a clear, concise topic sentence for each paragraph, leading to unclear transitions between thoughts. The authors should introduce key ideas more effectively to improve coherence.

• The introduction does not include hypotheses or research questions, which are crucial in guiding the reader through the study's aim. The authors should include these to clarify the direction of the research.

• The introduction lacks a detailed literature review that situates the study within the existing body of research. Including a review of relevant literature would provide context and justify the need for this research.

• The introduction does not provide information about the current state of agriculture in Vitamin.

2- Methodology

The current Research Design sub-section does not explain the design of this research. Instead, the current Section 2.2 contains Data Collection (please rename it). Therefore, the authors should make a Research Design sub-section to explain the step-by-step (stages) of this research. It is critical to convince readers that this research was conducted systematically and included necessary research activities. For each stage, please explain its objective(s), technique/approach(es) being used, and outcome(s) expected from the stage.

3- Results

Results and Discussion do not get along. The authors should focus on presenting the results of this study in this Results section. The authors do not compare their findings with those of other studies in similar or different contexts. A comparative discussion, especially with findings from studies in different regions or farming systems, would provide a more comprehensive understanding of how generalizable or context-specific the results are

4- conclusion

The current form of Conclusion mixes up the summary and key findings of this study with suggestions arising from the findings. The authors may simply consider using 3 paragraphs:

i. Summary and key findings of this study

ii. Managerial and policy implications arising for each key finding

iii. Insights for future research arising from the key findings and limitations of this research

**********

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:  Carlos Alberto Zuniga Gonzalez

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.

PONE-D-24-38432R1Small hydropower plants and livelihoods of the local population in rural VietnamPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Nguyen,

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.

==============================

ACADEMIC EDITOR:

The revised manuscript is satisfactory. However, the manuscript needs revision.

==============================

Please submit your revised manuscript by Jan 27 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.

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,

S Ezhil Vendan, Ph.D

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.

Additional Editor Comments:

The revised manuscript is satisfactory. However, the manuscript needs minor revision.

Page 9: Please check "(Error! Reference source not found.)" and revise.

In conclusion: The conclusion section was elaborately described. Avoid detailed background information and discussions in conclusion section. Please check and reduce the conclusion with respect to highlights of the obtained results.

Add sources of maps in the methodology sections.

Please check the typographical errors through out the manuscript.

Please check the references and revise as per the journal guidelines. For example, World bank reference in the reference list, page numbers uniformity in all the references (e.g., 2,4,5,8, etc.,), check the reference format in reference 1,13,14,15,18,19, etc. (add website link).

[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 #1: All comments have been addressed

**********

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 #1: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #1: 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 #1: 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 #1: Yes

**********

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 #1: After analyzing the documents, it is evident that the authors systematically addressed the reviewers' comments. Here's a summary of their adherence to the reviewers' feedback:

Structural Revisions:

The manuscript was reorganized to adhere to the journal's format, maintaining combined Results and Discussion sections due to readability benefits. The Conclusion section was significantly improved, structured into three clear parts as suggested: summary, policy implications, and future research.

Introduction Improvements:

The authors clarified the study’s aim and added hypotheses as requested. Background information on Vietnam's agricultural sector was included, and the section was streamlined by moving the literature review to a dedicated section.

Methodological Adjustments:

They clarified the rationale for their chosen regression models, selection of control variables, and addressed the suggestion for more detailed explanations on data sources and merging processes.

Results and Comparative Analysis:

Comparisons with other studies and specific regional insights (e.g., Dak Lak province) were added to enhance the interpretation of findings, addressing concerns about generalizability.

Conclusion Refinement:

Suggestions regarding key findings, policy recommendations, and limitations were incorporated. The discussion of limitations was expanded to highlight gaps and biases.

Addressing Specific Reviewer Concerns:

Reviewer-specific issues, such as language tone, motivation strengthening, and removing redundant keywords, were fully addressed. Suggestions to enhance figure copyrights and data-sharing compliance were also implemented.

Conclusion:

The authors appear to have incorporated all major comments, based on their detailed responses and manuscript revisions.

**********

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 #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.

Small hydropower plants and livelihoods of the local population in rural Vietnam

PONE-D-24-38432R2

Dear Dr. Trung Thanh Nguyen,

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,

S Ezhil Vendan, Ph.D

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE