PONE-D-24-46221On people’s perceptions of climate change and its impacts in a hotspot of global warmingPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Phuyal,

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.

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

​Based on the review input of external reviews, the reviewer - 2 has suggested for some minor revisions or revisit manuscript for possible answer the queries.

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

Please submit your revised manuscript by Dec 28 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,

Tasawar Baig, 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. Please include a complete copy of PLOS’ questionnaire on inclusivity in global research in your revised manuscript. Our policy for research in this area aims to improve transparency in the reporting of research performed outside of researchers’ own country or community. The policy applies to researchers who have travelled to a different country to conduct research, research with Indigenous populations or their lands, and research on cultural artefacts. The questionnaire can also be requested at the journal’s discretion for any other submissions, even if these conditions are not met.  Please find more information on the policy and a link to download a blank copy of the questionnaire here: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/best-practices-in-research-reporting. Please upload a completed version of your questionnaire as Supporting Information when you resubmit your manuscript.

3. Thank you for stating the following financial disclosure:

“The work was funded by the Federal Ministry of Education and Research of Germany (BMBF) under the project AECO (Number 01Kl1717) as part of the National Research Network on Zoonotic Infectious Diseases of Germany.”

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. 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. 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: 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: 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: Review Comments on "On People’s Perceptions of Climate Change and Its Impacts in a Hotspot of Global"

• The paper presents valuable insights into people's perceptions of climate change in a critical area. The introduction effectively sets the context and highlights the importance of understanding local perspectives.

• Overall, the abstract is well-written. However, it would be beneficial to mention the different altitudinal regions covered in the study. Including a line on policy recommendations or how this study can inform climate change adaptation strategies for mountain communities would enhance its impact.

• The introduction is generally well-structured. It could be strengthened by integrating some reports from ICIMOD, which have conducted extensive work related to climate change and disaster risk assessment in Nepal.

• The methodology is generally well-organized, but further clarification is needed on the following points:

o Sample Selection: More detail on how participants were chosen would enhance the study's credibility.

o Data Collection Methods: Elaborating on the tools used (e.g., surveys, interviews) and any validation processes undertaken would be beneficial.

o Statistical Analysis: A more thorough explanation of the analytical techniques used would improve the transparency of the results.

o Please add a few lines regarding household consent and ethical approval processes.

• Including a map of the study area and the geographic locations of data collection would be a valuable addition.

• Clarify the consent obtained from the relevant department for data usage. Specifically, detail the procedure for downloading data from their website (e.g., the withdrawal of the monsoon and monsoon season length obtained from the Department of Hydrology and Meteorology, Kathmandu, Nepal).

• The results are clearly presented. However, consider providing more contextual analysis that links the results to existing literature, which would strengthen the argument and illustrate how findings align or contrast with previous studies.

• Some discussion points could benefit from deeper exploration, particularly concerning the implications of the findings on local policy and community actions. It would be helpful to mention whether climate-induced disaster risk has increased or decreased and how community perceptions relate to crop production changes.

• If possible, please provide the statistical values (p-values) regarding community perceptions of climate change, as mentioned in the data. It would also be useful to present p-values for lowland, midland, and highland areas in a table titled "People's Perceptions on Climate Change."

• The conclusion summarizes the main findings well, but it would be beneficial to include more specific recommendations for stakeholders based on the study's findings. Additionally, highlighting the limitations of the study and suggesting areas for future research would provide a more balanced view.

• References: Ensure all references are up-to-date and relevant, particularly in the context of climate change literature. This will enhance the paper's credibility and scholarly contribution.

Reviewer #2: The paper offers valuable insights into peoples’ perceptions of climate change in selected sites of Nepal systematically compares those perceptions with climate indicators derived from meteorological data. Hence the study investigates specific socio-economic and other contexts (differed across the altitudinal regions) shaping peoples’ perceptions and provide useful recommendation for adaption and mitigation measures. Please see the attached file for the specific comments, and suggestions.

**********

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: Yes: Muhammad Zafar Khan

**********

[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: renamed_b78fa.docx

Attachment

Submitted filename: PlosOne2024_2.docx

On people’s perceptions of climate change and its impacts in a hotspot of global warming

PONE-D-24-46221R1

Dear Parbati Phuyal,

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,

Tasawar Baig, PhD

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments: