Dear Dr. Bai,

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 13 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,

Nabin Rawal, PhD

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

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

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

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

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

2. Please note that PLOS ONE has specific guidelines on code sharing for submissions in which author-generated code underpins the findings in the manuscript. In these cases, we expect all author-generated code to be made available without restrictions upon publication of the work. Please review our guidelines at https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/materials-and-software-sharing#loc-sharing-code and ensure that your code is shared in a way that follows best practice and facilitates reproducibility and reuse.

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

4. Thank you for stating the following in your Competing Interests section:

“The authors declared no conflict of interests”

Please complete your Competing Interests on the online submission form to state any Competing Interests. If you have no competing interests, please state "The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.", as detailed online in our guide for authors at http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submit-now

This information should be included in your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf.

5. 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.

6. Please include your full ethics statement in the ‘Methods’ section of your manuscript file. In your statement, please include the full name of the IRB or ethics committee who approved or waived your study, as well as whether or not you obtained informed written or verbal consent. If consent was waived for your study, please include this information in your statement as well.

7. We note that Figures 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 in your submission contain map/satellite 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 Figures 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 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:

I would like to inform you that may be ready for further processing only after major revision. Please consider the enclosed reviewer's comments and make the necessary changes to your manuscript based on their advice.

To make it easier for the reviewers and editor to identify the revisions made during the second review round, it is essential to use ink in various colors to highlight the changes made to your manuscript. Your revised manuscript must be submitted with a covering letter that lists all the changes you have made to the work and addresses any feedback you have received from the editor and all reviewer(s). Please overview the journal guidelines for author for preparing the manuscript ready to the further processing. If you disagree with any comment or comments, kindly state your position and justification.

Thank you

[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: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

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

The PLOS Data policy

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: No

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

Reviewer #1: This study evaluates land suitability for rain-fed wheat cultivation in southwestern Ethiopia using a GIS-based multi-criteria decision analysis, incorporating biophysical factors like soil, climate, and topography. The findings provide actionable insights for optimizing wheat production and food security, while recommending future studies to include additional ecological and socio-economic parameters for more comprehensive assessments. The following points should be addressed before further consideration and I will review the paper again after revisions:

Revise the manuscript for language clarity issues

Adjust the concept “rain fed” into “rainfed” in the title and the text

The title is extremely long. Substitute it with a shorter concise title. For instance, you can omit the scientific name of wheat. The word count in a good title should not exceed 20 words maximum.

In the abstract you state that “Wheat is one of the cereal crops rich in carbohydrates that are a source of energy for the human body. This energy is essential for body functions, physically activity, and maintaining overall health.” What does that have to do with your study? I see these sentences redundant and irrelevant to the subject under investigation. Revise the abstract to be more subject oriented, 2 lines for background, 2-3 lines for methodology and 6-8 lines for results, discussion, and conclusions.

Use better key words, e.g. Wheat, Rainfed agriculture, MCDA...etc.

Since the subject deals with rainfed agriculture, I expect to see a decent assessment of drought condition in Ethiopia during the past few decades. Drought is the main issue that drives researches similar to yours, highlighting areas suitable for rainfed agriculture and areas that are not. Still, I could not find a single mention to this issue. Make sure to add a section in the introduction highlighting drought issue and support it with references.

Highlight the importance of applying spatial rainfall anomaly indices (spatial rainfall data) and vegetation cover health data in highlighting agricultural drought (use this reference to support your statement: Javan, F. D., Samadzadegan, F., Toosi, A., & Tousikordkolaei, H. (2025). Spatial-temporal patterns of agricultural drought severity in the Lake Urmia Basin, Iran: A cloud-based integration of multi-temporal and multi-sensor remote sensing data. DYSONA-Applied Science, 6(2), 239-261. doi: 10.30493/das.2025.486806), and thereafter, selecting areas suitable for rainfed agriculture

At the end of the introduction you state that “This study was designed to solve the abovementioned gap by including identification of land suitability for wheat cultivation and provided future work for researchers.” This is not enough; a full description of research aims should be added.

Table 1: add links to the databases or use full name of the sources instead of abbreviations.

In the Descriptions of the study area, describe the climate of the area and wheat cultivation condition

The captions of all figures should be enhanced and more information should be incorporated. The readers should be able to understand the general purpose of the map (location, time, data…etc) without returning to the text.

The legend text should not cover any section of the map

Fig. 6: what does the gray selected districts map mean?

Reviewer #2: 1. What was the selection of criteria or factors based on? Please explain.

2. How was the soil investigated? From what depth was the sample taken? Was a profile dug? How many samples or profiles were investigated? Please indicate the location of the samples in the figure.

3. Why haven't other soil parameters such as lime, gypsum, salinity, alkalinity, etc. been investigated?

4. In the discussion section, it is better to make comparisons with the researches of others and the research done, and for the presented arguments, be sure to use valid and up-to-date references.

5. The advantages and disadvantages of the research done should be said.

6. Please provide appropriate and valid references for all provided relationships.

7. In the AHP method, did you use the opinions of relevant experts in the form of a questionnaire to determine the importance of the factors in the pairwise comparison matrix?

8. Please see the papers (https://doi.org/10.1007/s10661-022-10327-x, https://doi.org/10.1080/03650340.2018.1549363, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoderma.2017.09.012, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoderma.2019.05.046, https://doi.org/10.1080/00103624.2022.2072511; https://doi.org/10.1080/03067319.2020.1746775; https://doi.org/10.1007/s10661-022-10659-8; https://doi.org/10.1080/00103624.2019.1626870) to improve the quality of the manuscript and use and add them to improve the quality of the manuscript, especially the introduction and discussion of the manuscript, description and interpretation of properties and select the criteria.

9. Please give the names of soils according to the WRB system.

10. What was the accuracy of the method used? By which criteria is the method evaluated?

11. Please check the grammar of the whole text with a native speaker and fix the errors.

**********

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:  Javad seyedmohammadi

**********

[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.

Assessment of potential land suitability for rainfed wheat production using GIS and Multi criteria decision analysis in the Southwestern parts of Ethiopia

PONE-D-25-03191R1

Dear Dr. Bai,

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,

Nabin Rawal, PhD

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Thank you for addresing all the suggestion and comments. The manuscript can now be proceeded for further processing.

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed

**********

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

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

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

The PLOS Data policy

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

Reviewer #1: The authors have made all necessary revisions. The manuscript is now ready for publication.

The authors have made all necessary revisions. The manuscript is now ready for publication.

Reviewer #2: The authors have made the necessary corrections. The text has been improved. Thanks for the corrections and improvements.

**********

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

**********