-->PONE-D-24-53688-->-->Mechanisms of synergy creation for social-ecological transformation:  Leverage point analysis of the emergence of autonomous innovations-->-->PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Tajima,

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 Feb 09 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,

Enrico Ivaldi

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at 

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and 

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. Thank you for stating the following financial disclosure: This research was funded by the “Transdisciplinary Study of Natural Resource Management under Poverty Conditions Collaborating with Vulnerable Sectors (TD-Vuls) Project” under the Initiative for the Promotion of Future Earth Concept program provided by Research Institute of Science and Technology for Society (RISTEX), Japan Science and Technology Agency (JST) from 2017 to 2019 (JPMJRX16F3) and “Establishment of a Sustainable Community Development Model based on Integrated Natural Resource Management Systems in Lake Malawi National Park (IntNRMS) Project” under the Science and Technology Research Partnership for Sustainable Development (SATREPS) program provided by the Japan Science and Technology Agency (JST) and Japan International Cooperation Agency (JICA) from 2020 to 2024 (JPMJSA1903).

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.

[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: Partly

Reviewer #2: No

**********

-->2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? -->

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

-->3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.-->

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

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

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.-->

Reviewer #1: No

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: Dear Author(s),

Thank you for giving me the possibility to read and evaluate your work. The article covers an interesting and extremely timely topic, exploring the social and ecological transformation of systems and related challenges related to today's uncertainty, that is coherent with the focus of Plos One journal.

Therefore, the manuscript covers an extremely up-to-date and interesting topic. Despite the interest in the topic, I believe the article can be further enriched, and I hope my advice and suggestions can help the author(s) in strengthening their manuscript.

- Introduction:

The introduction sections in my opinion are too fragmented and reduce the readability of the article. I suggest the authors keep section 1, i.e., introduction, but without providing sub-sections for individual aspects. As for the introduction section, I suggest checking and reinforcing a few crucial elements that must be present in the introduction of a paper namely (1) the purpose of the study; (2) the relevance and significance of the study; (3) how it seeks to answer the set research question; and (4) the main contributions of the article.

In my opinion, some of the content included in the introduction could be channeled into a section 2 called for example literature review or theoretical framework as it is more specific and focused on more detail, compared to the initial preamble. Particularly in that the theoretical lens through which the topic is to be analyzed is specified.

Therefore, I would advise the authors to restructure pages 3-5 by constructing an introduction with the purpose and research question and then a second, more theoretical section explaining in detail the theoretical lens chosen for the article and consequently renumber the sections to follow.

- Materials and Methods:

I suggest the authors place the Table within the text closely so that the text can be read on page 6. I also suggest the authors avoid excessive fragmentation in the second session however by providing a subdivision only for data collection and implemented data analysis.

- Results and Discussion:

Also, for this section, I would avoid excessive fragmentation of the text and provide for splitting the Results and Discussion sections. I would advise the authors to enrich a bit their results, which appear a bit too descriptive and fail to represent more qualitatively the results that emerged also considering the theory and potential implications. This part could go to enrich an individual section based on the Discussion of Emerging Findings. Enhancing what may be the implications for society and policymakers. I would enrich this concluding part by providing a section on “Conclusion, Limitations and Future Research Agenda” precisely to highlight the limitations of the study and how these can be overcome by future research.

I hope you will find these comments and suggestions helpful in further developing this study and I wish you all the best for developing your work!

Reviewer #2: The manuscript titled “Mechanisms of synergy creation for social-ecological transformation” explores an innovative and relevant topic by analyzing mechanisms for creating synergies in socio-ecological transformations through leverage points. This approach is particularly effective for studying complex adaptive systems. It employs a well-justified and clearly explained methodology, using causal network diagrams to analyze processes of autonomous innovation. This technique allows for precise mapping of key factors and interactions. Moreover, the article provides six practical guiding principles for fostering socio-ecological system transformations, designed for implementation by practitioners, interdisciplinary scientists, and local leaders. Its robust findings, derived from a comparison between “synergistic” and “non-synergistic” cases, highlight critical factors for synergy creation, offering valuable insights for both theory and practice. The evidence base is strong, drawing on 17 cases of autonomous innovations across diverse geographical and cultural contexts, enhancing the generalizability of the conclusions.

The introduction, while detailed, could benefit from greater clarity and conciseness, focusing on synthesizing key concepts such as the role of synergies and leverage points. Some results, including the specific roles of different leverage points (LP(in), LP(out), LP(all)), would be more comprehensible with concrete examples from the analyzed cases. Although the article acknowledges the complexity of socio-ecological systems, it lacks a thorough discussion of methodological limitations, such as potential subjectivity in narrative analysis. While the article references a broad range of literature, a tighter integration of its findings with existing research on complex systems and socio-ecological transformations would be beneficial. The figures, particularly Figures 2 and 3, could be visually enhanced with clearer labels and more detailed explanations. Lastly, certain technical terms, such as “synergy-related value creation” could be better explained to improve accessibility for a non-specialist audience.

The article makes a significant contribution to the field of socio-ecological transformations and autonomous innovations. Enhancements in clarity, methodological transparency, and integration with existing literature would further strengthen its scientific and practical impact.

**********

-->6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean? ). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy .-->

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

**********

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/ . PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org . Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

-->PONE-D-24-53688R1-->-->Mechanisms of synergy creation for social-ecological transformation:  Leverage point analysis of the emergence of autonomous innovations-->-->PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Tajima,

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 25 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,

Enrico Ivaldi

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice.

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

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

-->Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.-->

Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed

**********

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

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented. -->

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

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

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.-->

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

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

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.-->

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

-->6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)-->

Reviewer #1: Dear Author(s),

Thank you for allowing me to review your work again. I believe that the revision process you implemented has improved the overall quality of the manuscript and its readability, greatly increasing its potential. However, in my opinion, there are still some aspects that need to be resolved. I hope that the following recommendations will improve and strengthen the manuscript:

• Introduction: I consider that the introductory section of the paper has been greatly improved, making some key aspects of the manuscript much more identifiable, such as the purpose of the article, which is now clearly identifiable. I recommend that the author(s) include some concrete examples of social ecological systems (SESs) to make the topic more accessible to the reader and reduce its abstractness. I would suggest giving some additional references for what is meant by ‘autonomous innovation’, even if they are then detailed further in the ‘Materials and Methods’ section, to give the reader an overview right from the start of the paper. I suggest the author(s) remove the subsection ‘Research Question’ and make the text all in a single section with the research questions inside, then move on to section 2, ‘Theoretical Framework’.

• Theoretical Framework: I appreciated the restructuring of the document, which made it much more readable and understandable, explaining the theoretical key of leverage points (LP) and the reference context that considers uncertainty and the achievement of the SDGs through potential synergies.

• Materials and Methods/Findings: I consider this section much improved in terms of structure and readability.

• Discussion: I would recommend that the author(s) call this section simply ‘Discussion’. I also recommend that the author(s) link the discussion of the results more closely to the theoretical lens adopted in the paper, specified in the ‘Theoretical Framework’, making it clear how the work fits in with existing theory, and citing some of the key references discussed in section 2.

• Conclusion, Limitations and Future Research Agenda: I consider the concluding section to be much improved.

I congratulate the author(s) on the extensive improvements made and hope that these additional comments will increase the potential and quality of the study. Good luck with your research!

Reviewer #2: Dear Authors,

Thanks for your revisions according to the comments. I am thankful for the effort you have put into enhancing the manuscript's clarity, structure, and overall quality. The reorganization of the Introduction, along with the addition of examples and supplementary references, truly helps to strengthen the theoretical foundation and make the paper easier to read for a broader readership.

Your diligent attempt to provide for potential subjectivity and to mention the challenges of avoiding arbitrariness adds depth along with transparency to your methodological approach. The changes to the figures, including the enhancement of

Overall, I am pleased with the revisions and believe that the manuscript is now publishable. I commend you for attempting to enhance the paper and address the reviewers' comments thoroughly.

I have no comments at this time and recommend the manuscript for acceptance.

**********

-->7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean? ). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy .-->

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

**********

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/ . PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org . Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.-->

Mechanisms of synergy creation for social-ecological transformation:  Leverage point analysis of the emergence of autonomous innovations

PONE-D-24-53688R2

Dear Dr. Tajima,

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,

Enrico Ivaldi

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

The reviewers' recommendations have been followed: I wish the authors good continuation with their research

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

-->Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.-->

Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed

**********

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

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented. -->

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

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

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.-->

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

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

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.-->

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

-->6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)-->

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

**********

-->7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean? ). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy .-->

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

**********