Dear Dr. Pérez-Sindín,

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 Apr 18 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.

• 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,

Jun Yang

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

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. Thank you for stating the following financial disclosure:

“The European Commission's Marie Skłodowska-Curie Individual Fellowship Action supported this work [Grant Agreement number: 101067663 — MAPSOCEXTRACT]. This work has also been supported by "Grant competition under Action I.3.9 "Human mobility and inequalities as seen through digital data sources", University of Warsaw.”

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.

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 Figure 1 and 2 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 (1) present written permission from the copyright holder to publish these figures specifically under the CC BY 4.0 license, or (2) remove the figures from your submission:

      a. You may seek permission from the original copyright holder of Figure 1 and 2 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/

Additional Editor Comments:

Reviewer 1

The authors explored the spatio-temporal inequality dynamics, the research is interesting. However, there have many problems need to be revised as follow.

1.The theme of this research is economic inequality. However, the economic is not shown in title. The title should be easily to read. such as spatio-temporal characteristic of economy inequality based on remote sensing data in Spain.

2.The English grammar should be noticed. In general, we use remote sensing data rather than remotely sensed data.

3.In line 145-147, how to shown age in your research?

4.In fact, the worldpop data is also inverted from NTL. How to solved the data homogeneity problem?

5.The content is insufficient. The conclusion and influence mechanism are not shown.

6.Although the article provides an explanation of the background of economic inequality, there is a lack of deeper discussion on the theoretical link between NTL data and economic inequality. For example, How can nighttime lighting reflect socioeconomic stratification? How does the wealth gap specifically affect light intensity distribution?

7.The study mentions "the removal of negative NTL data" but does not detail how these outliers are handled.

8.The article mentions that the NTL Gini coefficient in sparsely populated areas may better reflect informal economic activity, but does not further quantify this relationship. The heterogeneous should be mentioned.

9.The R² value of the cross-sectional regression model is low (e.g., the R² of VIIRS is mostly below 0.01), which indicates that NTL data have limited explanatory power for economic inequality.

10.The diagrams (Fig. 2 and Fig. 3) are briefly explained, and some important information is not fully explained.

11.Some relevant references are not shown in literature review. These research also used remote sensing data present economy or population.

Spatial evolution of population change in Northeast China during 1992–2018.Science of The Total Environment,2021,776,146023. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2021.146023

Spatiotemporal relationship characteristic of climate comfort of urban human settlement environment and population density in China. Frontiers in Ecology and Evolution,2022,10:953725. doi:10.3389/fevo.2022.953725

Ecosystem Service Value and Economy in the Pearl River Delta Urban Agglomeration of China.Land,2024, 13(10), 1670. doi: https://doi.org/10.3390/land13101670

Reviewer 2

The manuscript evaluates the potential of using night light (NTL) data to measure economic inequality at the municipal level in Spain. In addition, the authors combine Spain's comprehensive income registration data and diverse socioeconomic backgrounds to evaluate the effectiveness of NTL data in measuring inequality and explore its application prospects worldwide. The article is well structured and is recommended for publication after revision. My specific comments are as follows:

1. The abstract is the eye of the article. The article abstract needs to be further optimized and improved, and only needs to briefly introduce the background, methods, results and significance. In addition, research highlights need to be highlighted, such as the potential of using night light (NTL) data to evaluate economic inequality.

2. The introduction introduces research progress such as economic inequality, diverse socioeconomic backgrounds and night light (NTL) data, but it is not comprehensive enough. Discussions on socioeconomic development and imbalance should also consider aspects such as urbanization level, urban land use structure and development policies. It is recommended to refer to the following references to improve comprehensiveness. —Promoting or Inhibiting? Influence of Railway Container Transportation on Regional Economic Development�Does land transfer promote the development of new-type urbanization? New evidence from urban agglomerations in the middle reaches of the Yangtze River� Spatio-temporal characteristics and influencing factors of land disputes in China: Do socio-economic factors matter?�Spatiotemporal Changes and Influencing Factors of the Coupled Production–Living–Ecological Functions in the Yellow River Basin, China�Spatial heterogeneity of human settlements suitability from multidimensional perspectives in 31 provincial capital cities of China

3. In Table 1, the R² values of the VIIRS and Harmonized models are generally low (up to 0.03), which indicates that the NTL data has limited ability to explain the income Gini coefficient. It is necessary to supplement the analysis of this phenomenon in the discussion section, such as whether it is related to the spatial resolution of the NTL data or the accuracy of the population data.

4. When discussing the results of the panel data model, it is mentioned that the VIIRS model is slightly better than the Harmonized model in terms of goodness of fit. It is recommended to add a sentence about the advantages and disadvantages of the two models in practical applications, such as in which cases it is more appropriate to use VIIRS data and in which cases it is more appropriate to use Harmonized data.

5. When discussing the limitations of NTL data, it is mentioned that "NTL data may reveal higher levels of inequality in regions with a significant informal economy". Some specific methods on how to verify this hypothesis should be explained, such as whether it can be further verified through case studies or field surveys.

6. When discussing future research directions, a sentence can be added about how to integrate other geospatial data (such as urban density, infrastructure distribution, etc.) to improve the accuracy of the model.

7. The number of references in the article is insufficient. I suggest that the author add at least 15 relevant references to support the scientific and cutting-edge nature of the article.

[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?

Reviewer #1: Partly

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English??>

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

Reviewer #1: The authors explored the spatio-temporal inequality dynamics, the research is interesting. However, there have many problems need to be revised as follow.

1.The theme of this research is economic inequality. However, the economic is not shown in title. The title should be easily to read. such as spatio-temporal characteristic of economy inequality based on remote sensing data in Spain.

2.The English grammar should be noticed. In general, we use remote sensing data rather than remotely sensed data.

3.In line 145-147, how to shown age in your research?

4.In fact, the worldpop data is also inverted from NTL. How to solved the data homogeneity problem?

5.The content is insufficient. The conclusion and influence mechanism are not shown.

6.Although the article provides an explanation of the background of economic inequality, there is a lack of deeper discussion on the theoretical link between NTL data and economic inequality. For example, How can nighttime lighting reflect socioeconomic stratification? How does the wealth gap specifically affect light intensity distribution?

7.The study mentions "the removal of negative NTL data" but does not detail how these outliers are handled.

8.The article mentions that the NTL Gini coefficient in sparsely populated areas may better reflect informal economic activity, but does not further quantify this relationship. The heterogeneous should be mentioned.

9.The R² value of the cross-sectional regression model is low (e.g., the R² of VIIRS is mostly below 0.01), which indicates that NTL data have limited explanatory power for economic inequality.

10.The diagrams (Fig. 2 and Fig. 3) are briefly explained, and some important information is not fully explained.

11.Some relevant references are not shown in literature review. These research also used remote sensing data present economy or population.

Spatial evolution of population change in Northeast China during 1992–2018.Science of The Total Environment,2021,776,146023. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2021.146023

Spatiotemporal relationship characteristic of climate comfort of urban human settlement environment and population density in China. Frontiers in Ecology and Evolution,2022,10:953725. doi:10.3389/fevo.2022.953725

Ecosystem Service Value and Economy in the Pearl River Delta Urban Agglomeration of China.Land,2024, 13(10), 1670. doi: https://doi.org/10.3390/land13101670

Reviewer #2: The manuscript evaluates the potential of using night light (NTL) data to measure economic inequality at the municipal level in Spain. In addition, the authors combine Spain's comprehensive income registration data and diverse socioeconomic backgrounds to evaluate the effectiveness of NTL data in measuring inequality and explore its application prospects worldwide. The article is well structured and is recommended for publication after revision. My specific comments are as follows:

1. The abstract is the eye of the article. The article abstract needs to be further optimized and improved, and only needs to briefly introduce the background, methods, results and significance. In addition, research highlights need to be highlighted, such as the potential of using night light (NTL) data to evaluate economic inequality.

2. The introduction introduces research progress such as economic inequality, diverse socioeconomic backgrounds and night light (NTL) data, but it is not comprehensive enough. Discussions on socioeconomic development and imbalance should also consider aspects such as urbanization level, urban land use structure and development policies. It is recommended to refer to the following references to improve comprehensiveness. —Promoting or Inhibiting? Influence of Railway Container Transportation on Regional Economic Development�Does land transfer promote the development of new-type urbanization? New evidence from urban agglomerations in the middle reaches of the Yangtze River� Spatio-temporal characteristics and influencing factors of land disputes in China: Do socio-economic factors matter?�Spatiotemporal Changes and Influencing Factors of the Coupled Production–Living–Ecological Functions in the Yellow River Basin, China�Spatial heterogeneity of human settlements suitability from multidimensional perspectives in 31 provincial capital cities of China

3. In Table 1, the R² values of the VIIRS and Harmonized models are generally low (up to 0.03), which indicates that the NTL data has limited ability to explain the income Gini coefficient. It is necessary to supplement the analysis of this phenomenon in the discussion section, such as whether it is related to the spatial resolution of the NTL data or the accuracy of the population data.

4. When discussing the results of the panel data model, it is mentioned that the VIIRS model is slightly better than the Harmonized model in terms of goodness of fit. It is recommended to add a sentence about the advantages and disadvantages of the two models in practical applications, such as in which cases it is more appropriate to use VIIRS data and in which cases it is more appropriate to use Harmonized data.

5. When discussing the limitations of NTL data, it is mentioned that "NTL data may reveal higher levels of inequality in regions with a significant informal economy". Some specific methods on how to verify this hypothesis should be explained, such as whether it can be further verified through case studies or field surveys.

6. When discussing future research directions, a sentence can be added about how to integrate other geospatial data (such as urban density, infrastructure distribution, etc.) to improve the accuracy of the model.

7. The number of references in the article is insufficient. I suggest that the author add at least 15 relevant references to support the scientific and cutting-edge nature of the 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.

Dear Dr. Pérez-Sindín,

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 Sep 20 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.

• 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 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,

Jun Yang

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

If the reviewer comments include a recommendation to cite specific previously published works, please review and evaluate these publications to determine whether they are relevant and should be cited. There is no requirement to cite these works unless the editor has indicated otherwise. 

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:

Minor Revision

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions??>

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? -->?>

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available??>

The PLOS Data policy

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English??>

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

**********

Reviewer #1: The authors have revised manuscript. However, there still have many problems need to be revised.

1.The title is a little exaggerate. The authors mainly explored the spatiotemporal characteristic of economy in Spain. The title could be revised to spatiotemporal characteristic economic in Spain:Based on the grid scale

2.The abstract is too long. It should be compressed to less than 350 words.

3.The keywords is mess, it should contain spatiotemporal characteristic, nighttime image, Spain.

4.In introduction, the time should be specific, in recent years is not specific.

5.The authors cited too many references. In general, one sentence cited 3 references at most. There have a sentences cited 18 references, it is too much.

6.The authors used nighttime image represent GDP or income? Most of research use nighttime image represent GDP. Is there have relevant references represent income ? In addition, the existing literature review is too less, some content should be moved to study area and data source(the fourth and fifth paragraph).

7.The structure is mess. In section and method, I only want to see three parts, study area, data source and methods. The authors should use less words to tell me your data source , and how to use it? The basic information is not necessary. I don't care the detailed information of nighttime light data.

8.The presentation is not clear. The research is grid scale or villages and towns scale� “A key factor in this process is the modified OECD scale, used to calculate income per consumption unit. This scale adjusts income based on household size and composition, assigning a weight of 1 to the first adult, 0.5 to additional members aged 14 or older, and 0.3 to those under the age of 14 [50]. In other terms, children are weighted less than adults when computing per-capita income.” It is difficult to understand and lack of invalidation.

9.The worldpop data is population density, how to transfer number of population, it should be illustrated.

10.In results, the sub-title is too long. The correlation between NTL and Income-derived Gini coefficients is too easy. The control variable is not shown. In addition, the authors only illustrated the data analysis, the reason of phenomenon is not mentioned.

11.The authors mentioned spatiotemporal characteristic and urban-rural disparities in your text. In fact, these content is not explained clearly. I am not sure your research emphasized the spatiotemporal characteristic or comparing two NTL sources—VIIRS and Harmonized datasets. The manuscript logic is poor. The relevant content is not shown in conclusion.

12.The authors listed too many limitations. All of them can not be solved?

Reviewer #2: The authors seriously addressed my concerns and I have no other comments. Therefore, I recommend publication of this promising version.

**********

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

PONE-D-25-06682R2-->-->Can Nighttime Lights Serve as a Proxy for Economic Inequality at the Local Administrative Unit Scale? Evidence from Spain-->-->PLOS ONE?>

Dear Dr. Pérez-Sindín,

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 21 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.

• 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,

Jun Yang

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

1. If the reviewer comments include a recommendation to cite specific previously published works, please review and evaluate these publications to determine whether they are relevant and should be cited. There is no requirement to cite these works unless the editor has indicated otherwise. 

Additional Editor Comments:

Reviewer #1: The revised manuscript is not make me satisfied. The reasons are as allow.

1.The abstract is still too long. In fact, many words are not important enough.The author lacks of the ability to summarize. Such as Spain is among the most unequal EU countries by the Gini index and has published municipal income distribution records since 2015. Its geographic and demographic diversity— from dense metropolitan areas to sparsely populated rural municipalities—provides a robust setting for testing NTL-based measures with broader applicability, including in countries with limited urbanization.

2.Over the past two decades is not specific yet. The specific years should be mentioned.

3.I have mentioned one sentence should not cited 12 references. [12-24][25-32]. This problems still not revised.

4.The authors explored the across-sectional bivariate lineal regression analysis for the year 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019 and 2020 and one panel-data regression model for the study of temporal inequality dynamics between 2015 and 2020. What do similarities and differences indicate, and what are their implications?

5.The authors introduced the data detailed. The important information is not shown, such as website.

6.In fact, worldpop is also origin from night lighttime data. They have inherently consistent.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions??>

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? -->?>

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available??>

The PLOS Data policy

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English??>

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

**********

Reviewer #1: The revised manuscript is not make me satisfied. The reasons are as allow.

1.The abstract is still too long. In fact, many words are not important enough.The author lacks of the ability to summarize. Such as Spain is among the most unequal EU countries by the Gini index and has published municipal income distribution records since 2015. Its geographic and demographic diversity— from dense metropolitan areas to sparsely populated rural municipalities—provides a robust setting for testing NTL-based measures with broader applicability, including in countries with limited urbanization.

2.Over the past two decades is not specific yet. The specific years should be mentioned.

3.I have mentioned one sentence should not cited 12 references. [12-24][25-32]. This problems still not revised.

4.The authors explored the across-sectional bivariate lineal regression analysis for the year 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019 and 2020 and one panel-data regression model for the study of temporal inequality dynamics between 2015 and 2020. What do similarities and differences indicate, and what are their implications?

5.The authors introduced the data detailed. The important information is not shown, such as website.

6.In fact, worldpop is also origin from night lighttime data. They have inherently consistent.

Reviewer #2: The author carefully revised this article and addressed my concerns. I have no further comments. If other reviewers have no further concerns, I suggest publishing this version.

**********

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.

Can Nighttime Lights Serve as a Proxy for Economic Inequality at the Local Administrative Unit Scale? Evidence from Spain

PONE-D-25-06682R3

Dear Dr. Pérez-Sindín,

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.

Comments from the PLOS Editorial Office : We note that one or more reviewers has recommended that you cite specific previously published works in an earlier round of revision. As always, we recommend that you please review and evaluate the requested works to determine whether they are relevant and should be cited. It is not a requirement to cite these works and you may remove them before the manuscript proceeds to publication. We appreciate your attention to this request.

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. For questions related to billing, please contact billing support .

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,

Guy J-P. Schumann

Section Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions??>

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? -->?>

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available??>

The PLOS Data policy

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English??>

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

**********

Reviewer #2: The author has carefully revised the manuscript according to my suggestions and addressed my concerns. I recommend publication of this version.

**********

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 #2: No

**********