Can strengthening digital infrastructure enhance productivity in the cultural industry? evidence from Tibet

Yuanyuan Li; Qianqian Du; Guihua Ma; Caidan Gazang

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0317366

Peer Review History

Original SubmissionJuly 17, 2024
4 Sep 2024 Decision Letter - Ying Wang, Editor PONE-D-24-29366Can Strengthening Digital Infrastructure Enhance Productivity in the Cultural Industry? Evidence from TibetPLOS ONE Dear Dr. Li, Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process. Please submit your revised manuscript by Oct 19 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, Ying Wang 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. Please update your submission to use the PLOS LaTeX template. The template and more information on our requirements for LaTeX submissions can be found at http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/latex. 3. Thank you for stating the following financial disclosure: This paper is a phase result of the "Practical Analysis of Tibet's Cultural Industry from a Digital Perspective," a project under the High-Level Talent Training Program for Graduate Students at Tibet University (Project No.: 2020-GSP-B037). 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. 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. Please amend either the abstract on the online submission form (via Edit Submission) or the abstract in the manuscript so that they are identical. Additional Editor Comments: Dear authors, Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. A review of your manuscript is now completed. The comments by editors and reviewers are listed at the end of this letter. I hope the reviewers' comments can help you to make your paper better to meet the publication requirement from the journal. Please revise your paper according to the comments by the reviewers. When revising your manuscript, please consider EACH issue mentioned in the editors and reviewers' comments carefully: please outline every change made in response to their comments by highlighting the revisions with color text. You also need to submit a file of Response to Editor and Reviewers separately when you resubmit your paper. Kind regards, Ying Wang, Ph.D. Academic Editor PLOS ONE [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: Yes ******** 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 author has insightfully explored the impact of the digital economy on the cultural industry, and the article is well-written and readable. However, there are areas that need further enhancement: 1.The concept of " New-Quality Productivity" is novel, whereas "total factor productivity" is efficiency-based. The author should clarify their applicability and inherent relationship in this article. 2.Section 2, titled "Theoretical Mechanisms and Research Hypotheses," lacks clear theoretical content. Are these new productive forces or total factor productivity? These are concepts or methods, not theories. It is suggested that the author revise this section's title and restructure the text's logic. 3.The formatting of the article needs consistency; for instance, the last three paragraphs of section 3.1.1 have shifted to left alignment. 4.The results are specific and rich, but the policy recommendations are vague. Recommendations should be based on the main findings to better highlight the article's theoretical and practical value. 5.The introduction and policy recommendations lack sufficient references. Reviewer #2:** This paper developed an empirical study to analyze how digital infrastructures can increase the productivity of cultural industries by adjusting industrial agglomeration, improving the efficiency of goods circulation and narrowing the consumption gap between urban and rural areas in Tibet, China. In general, this research fits in the main theme of the journal, but still requires several revisions. Below are some specific comments: 1. New quality productivity is a concept put forward by China's high-quality development, not a theory, so the author should correctly understand the expression. 2. The contribution of the article needs to be further highlighted. 3. The “Theoretical Mechanisms and Research Hypotheses” section needs to be strengthened with references to support the hypotheses. 4. The tables in the article are vague and are not placed in the appropriate place in the article. 5. Why does the sentence“Here is the English translation for your description of the use of statistical software and regression analysis:” appear in the article? Please critically check the content of the article expression 6. In table 8, what is the significance of A? Adding a note or applying the full name would be more beneficial to the reader's understanding 7. In table 9, the significance of * is not clearly indicated, does it mean a statistically significant level as in the previous table or is it a confidence level as described in your article? 8. In the Robust test, firstly, the authors substitute the dependent variable by replacing it, but are the two variables substitutable for each other? Is there any evidence for this? Secondly, the author applies IV to eliminate endogeneity, but does not verify the validity of IV, is the IV you chose appropriate? 9. The description of the results section of the article is not clear and concise enough, there are too many tables, and the formatting of the tables should be improved to make them clearer and more intuitive. 10. The article lacks further discussion of the main results, which need to be analyzed in the ‘Discussion’ section, considering literature comparisons. 11. The academic writing of this manuscript needs to be improved. There are a few problems including format, grammar, logic flow, specific writing style, etc. please check and revise accordingly. ******** 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. Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: PONE-D-24-29366_comments.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0317366.r001
Revision 1
18 Oct 2024 Author Response Response to Editor and Reviewers Dear Reviewers, I would like to express my sincere gratitude to the reviewers for their insightful and constructive feedback. I highly value each of the comments provided and have carefully reviewed and addressed them one by one. Reviewer 1, 1.Comment: The concept of "New-Quality Productivity" is novel, whereas "total factor productivity" is efficiency-based. The author should clarify their applicability and inherent relationship in this article. Response: I accept this comment. I have clarified the relationship between "New-Quality Productivity" and TFP in the revised version. Specifically, I have revised the abstract to state that the study is based on the TFP framework, and corrected the description by emphasizing that "New-Quality Productivity" is a concept rather than a theory. Additionally, I have included further content explaining that the core aspect of New-Quality Productivity is the improvement of TFP. The introduction now includes six academic consensuses that clarify how TFP has evolved over time and has been adapted to China's context. I also explain that New-Quality Productivity is not an independent theoretical system but rather a key path to improving TFP through the innovative allocation of production factors. Furthermore, several new references have been added to the literature review to enhance this explanation. 2.Comment: Section 2, titled "Theoretical Mechanisms and Research Hypotheses," lacks clear theoretical content. Are these new productive forces or total factor productivity? These are concepts or methods, not theories. It is suggested that the author revise this section's title and restructure the text's logic. Response: I have revised the title of Section 2 to "Theoretical Foundation and Mechanisms" and strengthened the theoretical content. Specifically, I added a discussion on TFP theory and common methods for evaluating it, with a focus on how these methods are applied to the analysis of the Tibetan cultural industry. This has strengthened the theoretical grounding and improved the overall logical structure of this section. 3.Comment: The formatting of the article needs consistency; for instance, the last three paragraphs of section 3.1.1 have shifted to left alignment. Response: I have corrected the formatting inconsistencies throughout the manuscript, ensuring that all sections are properly aligned and formatted consistently. 4. Comment: The results are specific and rich, but the policy recommendations are vague. Recommendations should be based on the main findings to better highlight the article's theoretical and practical value. Response: I have revised the policy recommendations to align more closely with the main findings. Specifically, the recommendations now directly address the issues identified in the analysis and are clearer and more precise. For instance, I added suggestions for enhancing digital infrastructure investment in rural and remote areas, based on the analysis of cultural product accessibility. Additionally, I emphasized the development of small-scale, personalized enterprises in regions like Tibet, where cultural businesses are geographically dispersed. These revisions ensure that the policy suggestions are tightly connected to the theoretical framework of New-Quality Productivity. 4.Comment: The introduction and policy recommendations lack sufficient references. Response: I have added 7 new references to the introduction and 4 references to the policy recommendations to substantiate my conclusions and to align the policy suggestions with existing expert perspectives. Reviewer 2, 1.Comment: New quality productivity is a concept put forward by China's high-quality development, not a theory, so the author should correctly understand the expression. Response: I have revised the abstract to clarify that New-Quality Productivity is a concept rather than a theory, and added a more detailed explanation in the introduction. The introduction now explicitly discusses how New-Quality Productivity is tied to TFP improvement and how it fits into China’s broader development strategy, particularly through digital infrastructure development. 2.Comment: The contribution of the article needs to be further highlighted. Response: I have expanded the introduction to better highlight the article’s contributions, particularly focusing on how digital infrastructure optimizes the allocation of production factors and improves TFP. I also emphasized that while many previous studies have stressed the importance of infrastructure in Tibet, few have explored the specific mechanisms of its impact on various aspects of the cultural industries, which this paper addresses. 3.Comment: The “Theoretical Mechanisms and Research Hypotheses” section needs to be strengthened with references to support the hypotheses. Response: I have revised this section to "Theoretical Foundation, Mechanism Analysis, and Research Hypotheses" and added 5 new references to support the hypotheses, thereby strengthening the theoretical foundation of the analysis and enhancing its academic rigor. 4.Comment: The tables in the article are vague and are not placed in the appropriate place in the article. Response: I have reformatted all tables using three-line tables for consistency and clarity, and removed unnecessary content or calculations. Each table has been placed in the appropriate section to align with the corresponding analysis for better flow and reader comprehension. 5.Comment: Why does the sentence "Here is the English translation for your description of the use of statistical software and regression analysis:" appear in the article? Please critically check the content of the article expression. Response: I have reviewed the entire article and removed this unintended sentence. The entire manuscript has been carefully checked for content and language errors. 6.Comment: In Table 8, what is the significance of A? Adding a note or applying the full name would be more beneficial to the reader's understanding. Response: I have reviewed all tables, including Table 8, and ensured that all abbreviations, such as "A," have been replaced with their full names or clearly explained in footnotes to enhance clarity for the readers. 7.Comment: In Table 9, the significance of * is not clearly indicated. Does it mean a statistically significant level as in the previous table, or is it a confidence level as described in your article? Response: I have added the missing note explaining that the * in Table 9 indicates statistical significance, consistent with the usage in the previous table and the rest of the manuscript. 8.Comment: In the Robust test, the authors substitute the dependent variable by replacing it, but are the two variables substitutable for each other? Is there any evidence for this? Secondly, the author applies IV to eliminate endogeneity, but does not verify the validity of IV. Is the IV you chose appropriate? Response: Regarding the substitution of the dependent variable, I have added 5 empirical papers on cultural industries as supporting evidence, demonstrating that dimensions such as cultural industry output and fixed asset investment are valid alternative measures. For endogeneity, I introduced a new instrumental variable (IV) using the lagged value of digital infrastructure. I verified its validity using Cragg-Donald Wald F statistics, Anderson underidentification tests, and Sargan tests. The F-statistic (123.495) exceeds the critical value, indicating that the IV is not weak. The Anderson underidentification test has a P-value of 0.0019, showing the model is properly identified. The Sargan test's P-value of 0.4232 confirms the exogeneity of the IV. 9.Comment: The description of the results section of the article is not clear and concise enough, there are too many tables, and the formatting of the tables should be improved to make them clearer and more intuitive. Response: I have simplified the description in the results section, avoiding excessive explanation and improving the logical flow. The tables have been reformatted using three-line tables for clarity, and unnecessary content has been removed. All tables have been repositioned to align with the text for better readability. 10.Comment: The article lacks further discussion of the main results, which need to be analyzed in the "Discussion" section, considering literature comparisons. Response: I have added a new section titled “4.2 Extended Discussion,” where I compare my findings with 8 relevant studies to provide a broader context. This includes discussing the impact of digital infrastructure on the urban-rural consumption gap, the opposition of dispersed cultural enterprises to agglomeration theory, the prioritization of customized logistics needs over mere logistics efficiency, and the imbalance of investment between urban and rural areas. 11.Comment: The academic writing of this manuscript needs to be improved. There are a few problems including format, grammar, logic flow, and specific writing style. Please check and revise accordingly. Response: I have thoroughly reviewed the manuscript for grammatical issues, logic flow, and writing style. I have made the necessary revisions to improve the clarity and academic tone of the manuscript. However, I acknowledge that there may still be areas for improvement, and I welcome further feedback from the reviewers and editors. Above all, these suggestions have greatly contributed to enhancing the quality of my work, and I have learned a lot through this process. I hope that the revisions I have made will meet the high standards of the journal and align with the expectations of both the reviewers and the editor. Thank you for your consideration of the revised manuscript. Sincerely, Li Yuanyuan, Du Qianqian, Gazang Caidan Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Response to Editor and Reviewers.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0317366.r002
12 Nov 2024 Decision Letter - Ying Wang, Editor PONE-D-24-29366R1Can Strengthening Digital Infrastructure Enhance Productivity in the Cultural Industry? Evidence from TibetPLOS ONE Dear Dr. Li, Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process. Please revise your manuscript based on the comments from reviewers and submit your revised manuscript by Dec 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, Ying Wang 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. [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: (No Response) Reviewer #2: 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 Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available? The PLOS Data policy 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 ****** 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 Reviewer #2: 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: The author has made significant efforts to improve this article, but it seems that there is still some confusion between the concepts of theory and methodology. Total Factor Productivity (TFP) is not a theoretical framework, but rather a concept used in economics to measure the efficiency of all inputs in the production process. TFP is based on theoretical foundations, such as growth theory. Reviewer #2: (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 #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.0317366.r003
Revision 2
5 Dec 2024 Author Response Dear reviewers, Thank you for the thoughtful feedback. We sincerely accept the suggestions and have made the necessary revisions in the revised manuscript. Specifically, we have: Added two additional theoretical foundations to enhance the study's theoretical framework. Clarified the conceptual positioning of TFP as a measurement tool for production efficiency, ensuring it is distinguished from theoretical concepts to avoid confusion. Explicitly differentiated theoretical frameworks from methodological tools to ensure conceptual clarity. These updates are detailed in the Response to Editor and Reviewer document and highlighted in the Revised Manuscript with Track Changes (red text). We appreciate your valuable feedback and hope that the revisions meet your expectations. Sincerely, Yuanyuan Li Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Response to Editor and Reviewer_20241203.pdf https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0317366.r004
27 Dec 2024 Decision Letter - Ying Wang, Editor Can Strengthening Digital Infrastructure Enhance Productivity in the Cultural Industry? Evidence from Tibet PONE-D-24-29366R2 Dear Dr. Yuanyuan Li, 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, Ying Wang Academic Editor PLOS ONE Additional Editor Comments (optional): 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 Reviewer #2: 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 Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available? The PLOS Data policy 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: (No Response) ****** 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 Reviewer #2: (No Response) ****** 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: The author's revisions are thorough and comprehensive, with significant scientific value. Publication is recommended. Reviewer #2: (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 #1: No Reviewer #2: No ******** https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0317366.r005
Formally Accepted
13 Jan 2025 Acceptance Letter - Ying Wang, Editor PONE-D-24-29366R2 PLOS ONE Dear Dr. Li, 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. Ying Wang Academic Editor PLOS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0317366.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 .