The influence of survival conditions on farmer willingness to participate in non-grain conversions of cultivated land based on the SOR model

Hui Fan; Jiaxin Liu; Xiaoke Shao; Bingqian Sun; Yilin Yang; Chaoge Shi

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0318441

Peer Review History

Original SubmissionJune 12, 2024
12 Jun 2024 Author Response https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0318441.r001
18 Jul 2024 Decision Letter - Mingming Li, Editor PONE-D-24-22619The influence of survival conditions on farmer willingness to participate in non-grain conversions of cultivated land based on the SOR modelPLOS ONE Dear Dr. Fan, 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 see the comments of reviewers below. ============================== Please submit your revised manuscript by Sep 01 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, Mingming Li Academic Editor PLOS ONE Journal requirements: 1. When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf. 2. We note that the grant information you provided in the ‘Funding Information’ and ‘Financial Disclosure’ sections do not match. When you resubmit, please ensure that you provide the correct grant numbers for the awards you received for your study in the ‘Funding Information’ section. 3. Thank you for stating the following financial disclosure: [the National Natural Science Foundation of China (Grant number 71904150, 41771438) and General Project of Humanities and Social Sciences Research in Higher Education Institutions in Henan Province（Grant number 2024-ZZJH-039]. 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 include captions for your Supporting Information files at the end of your manuscript, and update any in-text citations to match accordingly. Please see our Supporting Information guidelines for more information: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/supporting-information. 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: Partly Reviewer #2: Partly ******** 2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: I Don't Know Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available? The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: No ****** 4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English? PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here. Reviewer #1: No Reviewer #2: No ****** 5. Review Comments to the Author Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters) Reviewer #1: Based on SOR model, this paper developed an empirical study to investigate farmer willingness to participate in non-grain conversions of cultivated land in Henan province, China. In general, the topic of this study has some implications for rural land use and farmer livelihood development, but still requires several revisions. Below are some specific comments: 1. The abstract does not provide a concise and clear overview of the results 2. In line 60, the use of "we" is not appropriate for academic writing. Additionally, the overall academic writing style of this manuscript requires improvement. 3. In the second paragraph of the introduction section, the author provides a literature review of the non-grain crop (NGC) of cultivated land from four aspects. However, the influencing factors and driving mechanisms are presented in an overlapping manner, causing confusion for the reader. It is important to note that a literature review is not merely a list of sources but rather a critical evaluation and synthesis of previous works. Therefore, the author should clarify and restructure the presentation of these factors and mechanisms to enhance the logical flow and readability of the introduction. 4. What is the scientific question of your research that is not mentioned in the introduction? 5. The innovation of the article is not clear enough from your literature review. 6. Theoretical analysis and research hypothesis section is not analyzed enough and needs to be further strengthened, the theoretical analysis needs to be supported by certain reviews and theories. It is also not recommended to put “Overview of the SOR model” in the theoretical analysis part. 7. In Section 3.1 on Data Sources, the authors have not provided detailed validation or justification for their conclusion that the data credibility is high. 8. Nowadays, rural households are no longer choosing between the traditional agricultural or non-agricultural livelihoods, but more and more are adopting a combination of agricultural and non-agricultural livelihood strategies. On what basis the author divides these two categories of rural households, the article does not explain in detail, and the division into agricultural and non-agricultural only seems to have some subjective bias. 9. Lines 243-256, from Table 2, how the authors come up with these results, it seems that the results from the table are contrary and that there is an error in the authors' expression 10. The results section lacks concise and clear presentation, and it is recommended that more precise language be used to describe the findings of the study. 11. The discussion section, which requires the author to analyze and compare the main results in depth, is totally missing and discussion is not a reporting of results. Reviewer #2: The structure of the paper is reasonable, the data processing work is rich, and it has certain innovation. However, the overall article is not smooth, and some of the content description lacks logic. In particular, the expression of the analysis part of the research results is not clear enough, and the scientific problems and main points of the article need to be highlighted. It need a major revision before accepted and can be improved from the following aspects 1.There is a lack of demonstration on the necessity of the influence of individual farmers and family factors on the non-grain conversions of cultivated land. It is suggested to increase in the introduction to reflect the significance of the research. 2.It is suggested to supplement the research status of non-grain conversions of cultivated land in Henan Province. 3.There is a lack of a full description of the abbreviations of various key words in the article. 4.There is a problem with the format of Hypothesis 7 last sentence, please correct it. In addition to this, there are other places in the article also exist the same problem, please check carefully. 5.The technical method part of the article is not clear enough, and it is recommended to add a technical flow chart as a whole. 6.Whether the SOR method is appropriate and reasonable here, it is recommended to supplement the discussion. 7.It is necessary to emphasize the correspondence between policy impact and key conclusions. ****** 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 ******** 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.0318441.r002
Revision 1
3 Oct 2024 Author Response Reviewer #1 1. The abstract does not provide a concise and clear overview of the results. Reply: Thanks for your suggestion. We have revised some contents of the abstract, especially the conclusion part, to improve the generality of the research conclusions. (Page 2, Lines 29-36) 2. In line 60, the use of "we" is not appropriate for academic writing. Additionally, the overall academic writing style of this manuscript requires improvement. Reply: Thanks for your careful checks. We have revised several similar problems in the paper. (Page 3, Lines 58-59; Page 23 Line 481; Page 23 Lines 484-485) 3. In the second paragraph of the introduction section, the author provides a literature review of the non-grain crop (NGC) of cultivated land from four aspects. However, the influencing factors and driving mechanisms are presented in an overlapping manner, causing confusion for the reader. It is important to note that a literature review is not merely a list of sources but rather a critical evaluation and synthesis of previous works. Therefore, the author should clarify and restructure the presentation of these factors and mechanisms to enhance the logical flow and readability of the introduction. Reply: Thank you for your nice suggestion. We have combined and adjusted the two parts of influencing factors and driving mechanism appropriately. (Page 3, Lines 66-75) 4. What is the scientific question of your research that is not mentioned in the introduction? Reply: Thanks for your suggestion. In writing, we neglected this problem. Now, we have added scientific questions in the preface, which improves the readability of the article. (Page 5, Lines 103-105) 5. The innovation of the article is not clear enough from your literature review. Reply: We sincerely appreciate the valuable comments. We have made several changes in the introduction to optimize the content and highlight the innovation of the article. (Page 5, Lines 97-111) 6. Theoretical analysis and research hypothesis section is not analyzed enough and needs to be further strengthened, the theoretical analysis needs to be supported by certain reviews and theories. It is also not recommended to put “Overview of the SOR model” in the theoretical analysis part. Reply: Thank you for the suggestion. We have revised this part. The introduction of SOR model is integrated into the specific content of the paper. (Pages 6-7, Lines 123-160) 7. In Section 3.1 on Data Sources, the authors have not provided detailed validation or justification for their conclusion that the data credibility is high. Reply: Thank you for your nice suggestion. It is supplemented in section 3.1.In order to ensure the accuracy of the questionnaire data, the research group adopted a one-to-one survey when conducting the questionnaire survey, and excluded the questionnaires with missing observational values, inappropriate options and other potential problems. (Page 10, Lines 227-230) 8. Nowadays, rural households are no longer choosing between the traditional agricultural or non-agricultural livelihoods, but more and more are adopting a combination of agricultural and non-agricultural livelihood strategies. On what basis the author divides these two categories of rural households, the article does not explain in detail, and the division into agricultural and non-agricultural only seems to have some subjective bias. Reply: Thanks for your suggestion. In the previous interviews and investigations, the research group found that family livelihood is the main symbol to distinguish farmers in the research area, and farmers with different family livelihoods have great differences in their willingness to convert cultivated land to non-grain land. Therefore, this study explores the non-grain willingness of cultivated land from the perspective of livelihood, combined with the actual situation of the research area. (Page 5, Lines 105-110) 9. Lines 243-256, from Table 2, how the authors come up with these results, it seems that the results from the table are contrary and that there is an error in the authors' expression. Reply: Thank you for your nice suggestion. The research group rechecked this part of the manuscript, and there was no problem. The reviewer's question is mainly because our expression may not be appropriate. In understanding this part of the text, Please combine Table 2. Measurement variables and descriptive statistics, especially according to the Observation Variables meaning and value of question items. For example, the mean value (2.52) of ES1 for AL is small than that (2.72) of ES1 for NL. This shows that ES1 has a greater impact on. The mean value (2.52) of ES1 for al is small than that (2.72) of ES1 for NL. This shows that ES1 has a greater impact on AL farmers. We have revised the statistical analysis results of the perceived benefits and perceived risks of non-grain cultivation. 10. The results section lacks concise and clear presentation, and it is recommended that more precise language be used to describe the findings of the study. Reply: Thanks for your suggestion. We have modified the result, deleted some unnecessary expressions, and improved the simplicity of the language expression in this part. (Page 24, Lines 491-496) 11. The discussion section, which requires the author to analyze and compare the main results in depth, is totally missing and discussion is not a reporting of results. Reply: Thank you for the suggestion. We have revised this part. The previous summative content has been deleted to highlight the comparison between the research results of this paper and related results. (Page 23, Lines 481, 484-485) Reviewer #2: 1. There is a lack of demonstration on the necessity of the influence of individual farmers and family factors on the non-grain conversions of cultivated land. It is suggested to increase in the introduction to reflect the significance of the research. Reply: Thank you for your nice suggestion. In the introduction, we added the literature in the field of the influence of individual factors and family factors of farmer willingness to convert cultivated land to non-grain land. (Page 5, Lines 97-103) 2. It is suggested to supplement the research status of non-grain conversions of cultivated land in Henan Province. Reply: Thanks for your suggestion. In the introduction, we added the literature on the current situation of non-grain conversion of cultivated land in Henan Province. (Page 5, Lines 113-115) 3. There is a lack of a full description of the abbreviations of various key words in the article. Reply: Thank you for the suggestion. We have added various abbreviations to the attachments of the article. (Page 26, Lines 545-551) 4. There is a problem with the format of Hypothesis 7 last sentence, please correct it. In addition to this, there are other places in the article also exist the same problem, please check carefully. Reply: Thank you for your nice suggestion. We corrected this mistake, and also corrected other similar mistakes in the paper. (Page 9, Lines 205-206) 5. The technical method part of the article is not clear enough, and it is recommended to add a technical flow chart as a whole. Reply: Thanks for your suggestion. We have added a technical flow chart to make the technical methods section clearer. (Page 9, Line 210, Figure 2) 6. Whether the SOR method is appropriate and reasonable here, it is recommended to supplement the discussion. Reply: Thank you for the suggestion. We explain the application of SOR in this article. (Pages 6-7, Lines 136-141) 7. It is necessary to emphasize the correspondence between policy impact and key conclusions. Reply: Thank you for your nice suggestion. We have revised the policy recommendations section to provide a better correspondence between policy impact and conclusions. (Page 25, Lines 512-519, 527-533) Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0318441.r003
15 Dec 2024 Decision Letter - Mingming Li, Editor PONE-D-24-22619R1The influence of survival conditions on farmer willingness to participate in non-grain conversions of cultivated land based on the SOR modelPLOS ONE Dear Dr. Fan, 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 Jan 29 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, Mingming Li 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: Though the other two reviewers give positive comments, the third author has some concerns on your sample selection. Please give more explanation on why the data is representative and has general meaning potentially. [Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.] Reviewers' comments: Reviewer's Responses to Questions Comments to the Author 1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation. Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed Reviewer #3: All comments have been addressed Reviewer #4: 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 #3: Partly Reviewer #4: Yes ****** 3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: I Don't Know Reviewer #3: I Don't Know Reviewer #4: 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 #3: Yes Reviewer #4: 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 #3: Yes Reviewer #4: No ****** 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: (No Response) Reviewer #3: The authors have improved their paper adding important parts. Still I have doubts concerning the impact of their research. The case study, even based on 650 questionnaires, could be not essential for the China Policy because involves only one Province. Also for the world this could be a very specific case. Authors tried to explain in their specific way a simple case that could not be useful. Maybe this must be added at the Conclusion chapter. Or specified since the beginning. The perceived benefit is always first, that is why the research must be orientated in other direction. Reviewer #4: Accept it as it is. The manuscript is appropriate and follows journal regulations and guidelines. This is a very important issue. ****** 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 #3: No Reviewer #4: Yes: Dr. Ioannis Adamopoulos ******** [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.0318441.r004
Revision 2
13 Jan 2025 Author Response In response to the reviewers' comments, we have provided the following answers to the relevant questions that require a response 2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions? Drawing on relevant articles, we observe the corresponding principles in the process of questionnaire design, questionnaire survey, and model construction in order to ensure that the scientific validity of the findings is guaranteed 3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? In order to make the statistical analysis more scientific and rigorous, we used a questionnaire survey method combining stratified sampling and random sampling. The process of statistical analysis of the data also strictly adhered to the requirements of statistics. 5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English? We have invited scholars with experience of studying in the United States to revise the language of the article during the writing process, and in addition we have asked a specialized AJE agency to polish the language of this article. 6. Reviewer #3: The authors have improved their paper adding important parts. Still I have doubts concerning the impact of their research. The case study, even based on 650 questionnaires, could be not essential for the China Policy because involves only one Province. Also for the world this could be a very specific case. Authors tried to explain in their specific way a simple case that could not be useful. Maybe this must be added at the Conclusion chapter. Or specified since the beginning. The perceived benefit is always first, that is why the research must be orientated in other direction. Thank you for your suggestions. We understand your concerns about the generalizability and practical impact of the study. Indeed, our case study is limited to a single province, so its implications for policy in China may be limited, and there are some limitations for global replication. Through a detailed examination of Henan Province, a major food-producing region, this study is dedicated to exploring the factors influencing the willingness to NGC of cultivated land and its specificities, with a view to providing theoretical support and lessons for the governance of defragmentation of arable land in other similar regions. We have already pointed this out in the introduction (lines 122-126) and in the conclusion of this paper (lines 501-503). And we state the scope of application of the conclusions of this study, which mainly applies to China's main grain-producing provinces. Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Response_to_Reviewers_auresp_2.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0318441.r005
16 Jan 2025 Decision Letter - Mingming Li, Editor The influence of survival conditions on farmer willingness to participate in non-grain conversions of cultivated land based on the SOR model PONE-D-24-22619R2 Dear Dr. Fan, 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, Mingming Li Academic Editor PLOS ONE Additional Editor Comments (optional): Reviewers' comments: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0318441.r006
Formally Accepted
Acceptance Letter - Mingming Li, Editor PONE-D-24-22619R2 PLOS ONE Dear Dr. Fan, 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. Mingming Li Academic Editor PLOS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0318441.r007

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 .