Shedding light on development: Leveraging the new nightlights data to measure economic progress

Prachi Jhamb; Susana Ferreira; Patrick Stephens; Mekala Sundaram; Jonathan Wilson

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0318482

Peer Review History

Original SubmissionMay 1, 2024
10 Oct 2024 Decision Letter - Martin Ramirez-Urquidy, Editor PONE-D-24-17551Shedding Light on Development: Leveraging the new Nightlights data to measure Economic Progress?PLOS ONE Dear Dr. Jhamb, 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. The paper has received positive feedback from reviewers as a quality paper meeting the PLOS one criteria for relevance of the topic and scientific rigor. However, one of the reviewers suggest to check for spatial autocorrelation that you might consider or comment about. Please submit your revised manuscript by Nov 24 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, Martin Ramirez-Urquidy, PhD. Economics 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. Thank you for stating in your Funding Statement: This work was supported by National Institutes of Health, NIH R01Al156866 ‘Spillover of Ebola and other filoviruses at ecological boundaries’ (Patrick Stephens lead investigator).” https://www.nih.gov/ The funder played no role in the study design, data collection or analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript. Please provide an amended statement that declares all the funding or sources of support (whether external or internal to your organization) received during this study, as detailed online in our guide for authors at http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submit-now. Please also include the statement “There was no additional external funding received for this study.” in your updated Funding Statement. Please include your amended Funding Statement within your cover letter. We will change the online submission form on your behalf. 3. When completing the data availability statement of the submission form, you indicated that you will make your data available on acceptance. We strongly recommend all authors decide on a data sharing plan before acceptance, as the process can be lengthy and hold up publication timelines. Please note that, though access restrictions are acceptable now, your entire data will need to be made freely accessible if your manuscript is accepted for publication. This policy applies to all data except where public deposition would breach compliance with the protocol approved by your research ethics board. If you are unable to adhere to our open data policy, please kindly revise your statement to explain your reasoning and we will seek the editor's input on an exemption. Please be assured that, once you have provided your new statement, the assessment of your exemption will not hold up the peer review process. 4. We note that Figures 1, 2, 3 and 4 in your submission contain map 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 present written permission from the copyright holder to publish these figures specifically under the CC BY 4.0 license, or remove the figures from your submission: a. You may seek permission from the original copyright holder of Figures 1, 2, 3 and 4 to publish the content specifically under the CC BY 4.0 license. We recommend that you contact the original copyright holder with the Content Permission Form (http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=7c09/content-permission-form.pdf) and the following text: “I request permission for the open-access journal PLOS ONE to publish XXX under the Creative Commons Attribution License (CCAL) CC BY 4.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). Please be aware that this license allows unrestricted use and distribution, even commercially, by third parties. Please reply and provide explicit written permission to publish XXX under a CC BY license and complete the attached form.” Please upload the completed Content Permission Form or other proof of granted permissions as an "Other" file with your submission. In the figure caption of the copyrighted figure, please include the following text: “Reprinted from [ref] under a CC BY license, with permission from [name of publisher], original copyright [original copyright year].” b. If you are unable to obtain permission from the original copyright holder to publish these figures under the CC BY 4.0 license or if the copyright holder’s requirements are incompatible with the CC BY 4.0 license, please either i) remove the figure or ii) supply a replacement figure that complies with the CC BY 4.0 license. Please check copyright information on all replacement figures and update the figure caption with source information. If applicable, please specify in the figure caption text when a figure is similar but not identical to the original image and is therefore for illustrative purposes only. The following resources for replacing copyrighted map figures may be helpful: USGS National Map Viewer (public domain): http://viewer.nationalmap.gov/viewer/ The Gateway to Astronaut Photography of Earth (public domain): http://eol.jsc.nasa.gov/sseop/clickmap/ Maps at the CIA (public domain): https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/index.html and https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/cia-maps-publications/index.html NASA Earth Observatory (public domain): http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/ Landsat: http://landsat.visibleearth.nasa.gov/ USGS EROS (Earth Resources Observatory and Science (EROS) Center) (public domain): http://eros.usgs.gov/# Natural Earth (public domain): http://www.naturalearthdata.com/ 5. Please include your tables as part of your main manuscript and remove the individual files. Please note that supplementary tables (should remain/ be uploaded) as separate "supporting information" files 6. 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. 7. Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice. Additional Editor Comments: The paper has received positive feedback from reviewers as a high-quality paper meeting the PLOS one criteria of relevance of the topic and scientific rigor. However, one of the reviewers suggest to check for spatial autocorrelation that you might consider. [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: No 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: This paper is interesting and contains pertinent information, but it is necessary to review the econometric model because the georeferenced information from neighboring cases can generate the problem of spatial autocorrelation, which limits the validity of the regression coefficients. There is a very rich methodology on econometric models with spatial data. You can consult: Baltagi, B.H., Li, D. (2004). Prediction in the Panel Data Model with Spatial Correlation. In: Anselin, L., Florax, R.J.G.M., Rey, S.J. (eds) Advances in Spatial Econometrics. Advances in Spatial Science. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-05617-2_13 Anselin, L., Gallo, J.L., Jayet, H. (2008). Spatial Panel Econometrics. In: Mátyás, L., Sevestre, P. (eds) The Econometrics of Panel Data. Advanced Studies in Theoretical and Applied Econometrics, vol 46. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-75892-1_19 Reviewer #2: The document raises a topic that is not innovative: the correlation between light intensity, economic activity and economic growth that translates into economic development. Recently, for example, the institutionalist vision of authors such as Acemoglu & Robinson grants special importance to regulatory frameworks, the development of infrastructure and the formation of quality of life indicators. Notwithstanding the above, the document has important strengths, which are listed below: 1) a robust, adequate and updated literature review; 2) a clear and consistent wording with the design of a justified and relevant research problem; 3) an interesting delimitation of the object of study, being interested in the countries of sub-Saharan Africa; 4) a robust and innovative methodological proposal with a consistent estimation process; 5) obtaining and analyzing results with a purposeful perspective and contribution to knowledge. The study highlights the relevant evidence regarding the unnecessary correlation of urban lighting presence with population density. Such a result seems to suggest a development dynamic disconnected from quality of life indicators, especially in communities with greater social backwardness in Africa, whose implications may be extensive to different regions of the underdeveloped world. It is, in summary, a document with all the possibilities of publication, which contributes to the literature, with a well-applied methodology and from which economic policy implications are derived that motivate a reflection on the nature, type and scope of development in regions, which are referents of exclusion in the great processes imposed by globalization. Finally, although the tabular and graphic schemes are of our own creation, it is suggested that the reader be told the source of the data in order to specify the origin of the information contained in Table 1 in each table and in each graph. ****** 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: Edgar David Gaytan-Alfaro ******** [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.0318482.r001
Revision 1
1 Jan 2025 Author Response Responses to Reviewer #1’s comments: Thank you for highlighting this important concern. To address this concern, we conducted Moran’s I tests and Monte Carlo simulations on the residuals of all models in our analysis to determine the presence and significance of spatial autocorrelation. Below are the key findings: Moran’s I Tests on Residuals: The Moran’s I values for the three models (from Table 3 in main text) are approximately 0.422, 0.501, and 0.422, respectively, with p-values < 2.2e-16. These results indicate a moderate but statistically significant level of positive spatial autocorrelation in the residuals of the three models. To address this issue, we re-estimated the model using spatial fixed effect models (“spaMM” package in R). Before diving in, we would like to provide some context and clarify our methodological choices. Initially, we aimed to incorporate spatial fixed effect models across the full dataset to account for spatial autocorrelation. Unfortunately, due to the size of the dataset and computational limitations, running these models was not feasible; the process required extensive computational time (up to 72 hours per model) and ultimately resulted in crashing of the software. To address this, we conducted supplementary analyses using spatial econometric models on a subset of the dataset (15,000 observations). This allowed us to evaluate spatial autocorrelation in a more manageable framework. The results of these supplementary spatial econometric models (Table R.3) are consistent with the primary analysis (Table 3 in the main text) and serve as a robustness check. The results of these supplementary spatial econometric models are presented in the supporting information document as S3 Table 8. Our findings are broadly consistent with those of Baltagi et al. (2004), who demonstrated that accounting for spatial autocorrelation does not always improve prediction accuracy. In their analysis of liquor demand, the fixed effect model without spatial autocorrelation achieved the lowest RMSE (0.1360), closely followed by the random effect model without spatial autocorrelation (0.1367). For short-term forecasts (1 year ahead), incorporating spatial autocorrelation improved performance marginally. However, for longer-term forecasts (2 or more years), the FE and RE estimators without spatial autocorrelation consistently outperformed models that accounted for spatial auto-correlation. Overall, Baltagi et al. (2004) concluded that taking into account heterogeneity across states using FE or RE estimators yielded the best out-of-sample RMSE forecast performance. While spatial autocorrelation provided marginal improvements in the first year, its predictive benefits were minimal beyond that, and the differences between spatial and non-spatial models were not statistically significant. We have included the results of the supplementary spatial econometric models (S3 Table 8) for the subset of the data to provide additional context and support for our findings. However, the primary models in the manuscript rely on fixed effects without accounting for spatial autocorrelation. We appreciate your understanding of these methodological challenges and believe that the inclusion of supplementary spatial analyses strengthens the validity of our approach. We are happy to provide further details or clarifications if needed. Responses to Reviewer #2’s comments: Thank you for highlighting the need for clearer attribution of data sources in tables and graphs. While Table 1 presents the source of each variable used in our study, we have also revised all tables and figures to include specific data source details and ensure clarity for the audience. Once again, we appreciate your constructive comments, which have helped us improve the manuscript. We hope the revisions will address your concerns. Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0318482.r002
17 Jan 2025 Decision Letter - Martin Ramirez-Urquidy, Editor Shedding light on development: Leveraging the new nightlights data to measure economic progress PONE-D-24-17551R1 Dear Dr. Jhamb, 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, Martin Ramirez-Urquidy, PhD. Economics Academic Editor PLOS ONE Additional Editor Comments (optional): Reviewers' comments: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0318482.r003
Formally Accepted
23 Jan 2025 Acceptance Letter - Martin Ramirez-Urquidy, Editor PONE-D-24-17551R1 PLOS ONE Dear Dr. Jhamb, 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. Martin Ramirez-Urquidy Academic Editor PLOS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0318482.r004

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 .