Effect of rising fuel prices on small-scale fisheries livelihoods and marine sustainability in Ghana

Victor Owusu

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0317260

Peer Review History

Original SubmissionNovember 22, 2023
13 Aug 2024 Decision Letter - Charles Odilichukwu R. Okpala, Editor PONE-D-23-38320Effect of rising fuel prices on small-scale fisheries livelihoods and marine sustainability in Ghana.PLOS ONE Dear Dr. Owusu, 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: Please see comments below ============================== Please submit your revised manuscript by Sep 27 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, Charles Odilichukwu R. Okpala, PhD 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. Note from Emily Chenette, Editor in Chief of PLOS ONE, and Iain Hrynaszkiewicz, Director of Open Research Solutions at PLOS: Did you know that depositing data in a repository is associated with up to a 25% citation advantage (https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0230416)? If you’ve not already done so, consider depositing your raw data in a repository to ensure your work is read, appreciated and cited by the largest possible audience. You’ll also earn an Accessible Data icon on your published paper if you deposit your data in any participating repository (https://plos.org/open-science/open-data/#accessible-data). 3. You indicated that ethical approval was not necessary for your study. We understand that the framework for ethical oversight requirements for studies of this type may differ depending on the setting and we would appreciate some further clarification regarding your research. Could you please provide further details on why your study is exempt from the need for approval and confirmation from your institutional review board or research ethics committee (e.g., in the form of a letter or email correspondence) that ethics review was not necessary for this study? Please include a copy of the correspondence as an ""Other"" file. 4. We note that your Data Availability Statement is currently as follows: [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. PLOS requires an ORCID iD for the corresponding author in Editorial Manager on papers submitted after December 6th, 2016. Please ensure that you have an ORCID iD and that it is validated in Editorial Manager. To do this, go to ‘Update my Information’ (in the upper left-hand corner of the main menu), and click on the Fetch/Validate link next to the ORCID field. This will take you to the ORCID site and allow you to create a new iD or authenticate a pre-existing iD in Editorial Manager. Please see the following video for instructions on linking an ORCID iD to your Editorial Manager account: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_xcclfuvtxQ. 6. Please amend your manuscript to include your abstract after the title page. 7. We note that Figure 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: 1. You may seek permission from the original copyright holder of Figure 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].” 2. 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/ 8. 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: It is a well written piece of scholarly work. I encourage authors to attend to concerns raised by one of the reviewers. Look forward to your revised 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? The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Partly ******** 2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: 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: Yes Reviewer #2: 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: The paper is well-written and adds to the existing literature on the subject. The introduction is well-composed and has been developed on the right lines. The most appropriate methodology has been used for analysis of data and information. The results have been reported well. A logical sequence of interpretations has been followed and developed scientifically. The discussion has been well brought out and the cogency of arguments are well thought out. The discussion is comprehensive and complete. References are as required. May be accepted for publication . Reviewer #2: The manuscript addresses a significant issue with a clear methodology and relevant findings. However, it requires several improvements in clarity, structure, and presentation to enhance its readability and impact. Please find the comments below: Abstract The abstract clearly outlines the study's objective, methodology, key findings, and implications. However, it could be more concise, focusing on the most critical points. Anyway I suggest that author must reduce redundancy, such as "The study applied a mixed-methods approach to investigate the effects of fuel price hikes on the livelihoods of coastal fisherfolk using the sustainable livelihoods framework" can be shortened. Also authors need to highlight the main findings more succinctly, possibly breaking them into bullet points for clarity. Introduction The introduction provides a thorough background on the issue, including relevant statistics and references. The context of global oil prices affecting local economies is well established. Also the Sustainable Livelihoods Approach (SLA) is well explained and relevant to the study. However, I think 1 and 2 should be combined as "Introduction". I think authors need to work really hard to restructure this two sections. I also suggested that this section is dense with information. Please consider breaking it into smaller paragraphs for better readability. Also author need to clearly state the research questions earlier in the introduction to guide the reader. Please also add more recent studies to support the discussion on SLA and its application to fisheries. M&M I think authors need to provide more details on the sampling techniques and why 220 households and 20 stakeholders were chosen. Also author need to discuss any limitations of the methods used and how they were addressed. Results I request the authors please use more visual aids like graphs and tables to summarize key data points. Also authors must provide more direct quotes from interviews to support qualitative findings. Discussion Please ensure that each finding is discussed in relation to the research questions. I think authors need to highlight the practical implications of the findings for policymakers and stakeholders more explicitly. Additionally authors need to include specific recommendations for future research, and address the limitations of the study briefly and suggest how future studies could overcome these. Frankly speaking, this work lacks of any interesting point and to really sure what is a really new findings from the work. Please emphasize that and explain more carefully. ****** 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.0317260.r001
Revision 1
15 Sep 2024 Author Response Academic editor 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 Response The manuscript has been formatted in relation to PLOS ONEs style requirements. 2.Note from Emily Chenette, Editor in Chief of PLOS ONE, and Iain Hrynaszkiewicz, Director of Open Research Solutions at PLOS: Did you know that depositing data in a repository is associated with up to a 25% citation advantage (https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0230416)? If you’ve not already done so, consider depositing your raw data in a repository to ensure your work is read, appreciated and cited by the largest possible audience. You’ll also earn an Accessible Data icon on your published paper if you deposit your data in any participating repository (https://plos.org/open-science/open-data/#accessible-data). Response Thank you for the information 3. You indicated that ethical approval was not necessary for your study. We understand that the framework for ethical oversight requirements for studies of this type may differ depending on the setting and we would appreciate some further clarification regarding your research. Could you please provide further details on why your study is exempt from the need for approval and confirmation from your institutional review board or research ethics committee (e.g., in the form of a letter or email correspondence) that ethics review was not necessary for this study? Please include a copy of the correspondence as an ""Other"" file. Response Over the past few years l have established working relationships with fisherfolks in the Central Region of Ghana and has built trust with the communities and leadership of the fisherfolks for successful work. The already established relationship means easy entry into the communities and being affiliated with an academic community gives the team credibility to conduct ethically appropriate research with the rights and safety of the research participants and the researcher intact. Thus, the collaboration between the researchers and the case study communities in the Central Region of Ghana has developed into a long-standing respectful and reciprocal relationship. An introductory letter has also been attached File. 5. PLOS requires an ORCID iD for the corresponding author in Editorial Manager on papers submitted after December 6th, 2016. Please ensure that you have an ORCID iD and that it is validated in Editorial Manager. To do this, go to ‘Update my Information’ (in the upper left-hand corner of the main menu), and click on the Fetch/Validate link next to the ORCID field. This will take you to the ORCID site and allow you to create a new iD or authenticate a pre-existing iD in Editorial Manager. Please see the following video for instructions on linking an ORCID iD to your Editorial Manager account: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_xcclfuvtxQ. RESPONSE ORCID iD 0009-0004-4801-0985 0009-0004-4801-0985 6.Please amend your manuscript to include your abstract after the title page. Thank you, this has been done 7.We note that Figure 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: RESPONSE Fig 4 has been removed. 8. 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. RESPONSE All the necessary changes have been effected. Thank you Reviewer 2 Comments 1.The abstract clearly outlines the study's objective, methodology, key findings, and implications. However, it could be more concise, focusing on the most critical points. Anyway I suggest that author must reduce redundancy, such as "The study applied a mixed-methods approach to investigate the effects of fuel price hikes on the livelihoods of coastal fisherfolk using the sustainable livelihoods framework" can be shortened. Also authors need to highlight the main findings more succinctly, possibly breaking them into bullet points for clarity Response I thank the reviewer for pointing this out. The necessary improvements have been made. 2.The introduction provides a thorough background on the issue, including relevant statistics and references. The context of global oil prices affecting local economies is well established. Also the Sustainable Livelihoods Approach (SLA) is well explained and relevant to the study. However, I think 1 and 2 should be combined as "Introduction". I think authors need to work really hard to restructure this two sections. I also suggested that this section is dense with information. Please consider breaking it into smaller paragraphs for better readability. Also author need to clearly state the research questions earlier in the introduction to guide the reader. Please also add more recent studies to support the discussion on SLA and its application to fisheries. Response Section 1 and 2 have been combined as introduction. The section has also been broken into smaller paragraphs to make it easy to read. All the other necessary corrections has been made. 3. I think authors need to provide more details on the sampling techniques and why 220 households and 20 stakeholders were chosen. Also author need to discuss any limitations of the methods used and how they were addressed. Response The sampling techniques has been further explained see page 13 -14. The sample size used for the study is actually 320 not 220 as initially reported by the author. It’s a typological error, kindly pardon me. The process leading to the selection of the 320 participants is explained in pages 13-15. 4. I request the authors please use more visual aids like graphs and tables to summarize key data points. Also authors must provide more direct quotes from interviews to support qualitative findings. Response Thank you for this comment, l have worked on the comments accordingly , a new chart has been added and some interview quotations have also been added. 5. Please ensure that each finding is discussed in relation to the research questions. I think authors need to highlight the practical implications of the findings for policymakers and stakeholders more explicitly. Additionally authors need to include specific recommendations for future research, and address the limitations of the study briefly and suggest how future studies could overcome these. Response Thank you for this valuable comment. The discussion section has been worked on. Kindly see the discussion section. 6.Frankly speaking, this work lacks of any interesting point and to really sure what is a really new findings from the work. Please emphasize that and explain more carefully. Response This paper contributes to the literature on global fuel price hikes and its implications for marine fisheries sustainability by investigating the effects of oil price shocks on fisheries’ livelihoods in SSF communities in Ghana. The study considers the impacts and the various coping strategies fisherfolk deploy in response to fuel price shocks. The study contributes to the literature on coastal livelihoods, ocean governance, and natural resources management. Ghana is both an oil importer and exporter; hence, examining the effects of escalating global oil prices on the local fishing industry would interest the government, development practitioners, and policymakers. The results from the study could further help to devise a more specific stimulus package tailored to cater to the unique needs of the sector involved. Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Response to Reviewer.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0317260.r002
19 Nov 2024 Decision Letter - Charles Odilichukwu R. Okpala, Editor PONE-D-23-38320R1Effect of rising fuel prices on small-scale fisheries livelihoods and marine sustainability in Ghana.PLOS ONE Dear Dr. Owusu, 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:Please see attached file. Kindly address comments raised in detail, and provide responses to the each comment in your reply (Please, this is compulsory) ============================== Please submit your revised manuscript by Jan 03 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, Charles Odilichukwu R. Okpala, PhD 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: Kindly attend to the comments raised. [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 #3: (No Response) ******** 2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions? The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented. Reviewer #3: Yes ****** 3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #3: Yes ****** 4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available? The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified. Reviewer #3: Yes ****** 5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English? PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here. Reviewer #3: 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 #3: (No Response) ****** 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 #3: No ******** [NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.] While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step. Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: PONE-D-23-38320_R1_reviewer By WUBSHET.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0317260.r003
Revision 2
18 Dec 2024 Author Response 1.This should be part of the recommendation drawn from your study. It should not be included here as a specific objective Response I thank the reviewer for this important comment, I have deleted objective 3 accordingly. 2. Please briefly include the livelihood supported by the sector i.e. both direct and indirect/families beneficiary that relay on the aquatic resources. Response I thank the reviewer for this observation. The fisheries sector directly support the livelihoods of men and women in the coastal communities. The men are engaged in fishing , the women are involved in processing and trading of fish. Indirectly the sector also support the livelihoods of boat builders, food vendors etc Please page 9, line 226-230. 3. Why the interview was conducted with stakeholders only? It should have been conducted with selected fishers too, to elaborate the quantitative finding. Response The stakeholders includes fisherfolk, government officials and NGOs. This is further explained – please see page 11, line 287-289. 4. Please compare the change in fuel price/a single production of the fishers before and after the fuel price change in GHANA Response Thank you, this has been done. 5.If you had employed quantitative survey, why you did not measure the livelihoods of the fishers using indicators for these different capital assets. Response I thank the reviewer for this observation. Unfortunately, l did not measure the livelihood of the fishers in relation to the capital assets due to the limited scope of study. Since the study is limited in its scope l decided to focused on describing how the fuel price hikes have negatively affected the livelihood assets of fisherfolk. 6. If you have a data, please include one table that indicate fuel consumption of fishers/trip, boat horsepower with their respective fuel consumption, and enquiring cost per production time and production in tone/kg. The profitability to support their livelihood should be related with their income and expense Response Different boats catch different species using boat engine capacity of 40hp. In addition, the number of fishing days differ from boat to boat. For instance the quantity of fish for a set net gear will differ from that beach seine because they all target different species and the weight differ in terms of the fish. So the average fish catch for 40hp per trip will be difficult to provide. I have however included information provided by one of the interviewed canoe owner in relation to fuel consumption per fishing trip with 40 hp / cost of production and volume of fish landed in kg. Please see page 17, line 384 -393. 7. Please include some points on sustainability either here or in recommendation section Response This have been done, please see page page 25 , line 617. 8. Please remove the reference from this section. As this is your conclusion and recommendation from the study. Response Thank you, this has been done. Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Response to reviwer comments.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0317260.r004
26 Dec 2024 Decision Letter - Charles Odilichukwu R. Okpala, Editor Effect of rising fuel prices on small-scale fisheries livelihoods and marine sustainability in Ghana. PONE-D-23-38320R2 Dear Dr. Owusu, 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, Charles Odilichukwu R. Okpala, PhD Academic Editor PLOS ONE Additional Editor Comments (optional): Reviewers' comments: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0317260.r005
Formally Accepted
2 Jan 2025 Acceptance Letter - Charles Odilichukwu R. Okpala, Editor PONE-D-23-38320R2 PLOS ONE Dear Dr. Owusu, 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. Charles Odilichukwu R. Okpala Academic Editor PLOS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0317260.r006

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 .