Nationwide monthly burned area monitoring in Indonesia using Sentinel-2

David L. A. Gaveau; Adrià Descals; Mohammad A. Salim

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0331831

Peer Review History

Original SubmissionAugust 21, 2025
22 Oct 2025 Decision Letter - Bijeesh Veettil, Editor -->PONE-D-25-45724-->-->Nationwide Monthly Burned Area monitoring in Indonesia using Sentinel-2-->-->PLOS ONE Dear Dr. Gaveau, 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 Dec 06 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.. 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.. 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.. 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 . 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 . 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 . 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, Bijeesh Kozhikkodan Veettil 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. 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 3, 4, 5, and 8 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: 1. You may seek permission from the original copyright holder of Figures 3, 4, 5, and 8 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].” 2. 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/ 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. [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: 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.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.-->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.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: No 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: 1.In remote sensing and computer science, algorithm often implies a novel mathematical or computational procedure. In this manuscript, the approach is essentially a workflow combining preprocessing, machine learning, and rule-based filtering. The claim of developing a new “algorithm” is overstated, as most components rely on established methods and primarily represent an operational integration of existing techniques. A more accurate framing might be processing chain or workflow/ generic methodology rather than a novel algorithm. 2.If the authors claim this is the first automated nationwide monthly burned area algorithm, reviewers and readers will expect at least a description of how end users can interact with it. Without an interface or demonstration, the system risks being perceived as a research prototype rather than an operational monitoring tool. This is especially critical because the paper emphasizes policy and enforcement applications 3.The link between the ENSO (ONI) and IOD anomalies and fire peaks is described as correlation, but no statistical modeling is provided to quantify strength of influence. Reviewer #2: The paper is well-written in a consistent manner and is easy to understand. The topic is interesting and very important for conserving forests and vegetation cover in tropical areas. I only have some recommendations, which I have provided below: The abstract does not mention the methodology. Check the text for language issues. Line 67: Provide some references regarding the use of Landsat data in Indonesia. Line 81: "with advanced machine learning algorithms" – State exactly which methods were used. Line 91: "To date, no automated burned area detection system exists for Indonesia." I did a brief search and found several papers using AI for burnt area detection. How can the authors claim that their method is the only one published so far? I think there are some other papers published, using AI as an automated way of detecting burned areas in Indonesia. Line 94: Explain the "FIRMS" dataset, as it might be new to some readers. What is the difference between this paper and the previous one? (See line 79). Figure 1 is very simple. The paper is fine without it as it is. Consider adding more detail or removing it, as the text is already sufficient. The text uses many abbreviations without explaining them fully. I don't understand why 6.25 hectares was selected as the threshold. This is already a large area (250m x 250m). The authors have stated that not removing fragmented burned areas is a main advantage of this paper. However, many of these areas could be false positives or negatives. What is the impact on the final results if these patches are removed? Is this done only for comparison with other products? In section 3.2, please explain what happens in the different phases of each oscillation regarding precipitation, temperature, etc., and how these factors affect burned areas. ****** -->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 published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.). 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 For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy..-->..--> Reviewer #1: No Reviewer #2: Yes:Masoud Jafari ShalamzariMasoud Jafari ShalamzariMasoud Jafari ShalamzariMasoud Jafari Shalamzari ******** [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.] To ensure your figures meet our technical requirements, please review our figure guidelines: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/figures You may also use PLOS’s free figure tool, NAAS, to help you prepare publication quality figures: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/figures#loc-tools-for-figure-preparation. NAAS will assess whether your figures meet our technical requirements by comparing each figure against our figure specifications. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0331831.r001
Revision 1
29 Dec 2025 Author Response Response to Reviewers Manuscript title: Automated monthly burned area mapping for Indonesia using Sentinel-2 and FIRMS data (2019–2024) Manuscript ID: PONE-S-25-59671 Authors: D.L.A. Gaveau, A. Descals, M.A. Salim Journal: PLOS ONE General Response We thank the Academic Editor and both reviewers for their constructive and insightful comments. We have revised the manuscript accordingly. Below we address each comment point-by-point. Reviewer comments are reproduced in italics, followed by our responses in plain text. Reviewer #1 “In remote sensing and computer science, algorithm often implies a novel mathematical or computational procedure. In this manuscript, the approach is essentially a workflow combining preprocessing, machine learning, and rule-burned-area filtering… The claim of developing a new ‘algorithm’ is overstated.” Response: We appreciate this clarification. We agree that the term workflow or processing chain more accurately describes our method. We have revised the manuscript throughout to reduce the emphasis on “new algorithm” and instead describe it as an “automated monthly burned-area processing chain” built from established methods — Sentinel-2 pre/post-fire compositing, Random Forest classification, and rule-burned-area filtering — integrated into a single operational workflow. The novelty lies in (i) its automation at national scale, (ii) its monthly temporal resolution, and (iii) its adaptation to Indonesia’s landscape and policy requirements. “If the authors claim this is the first automated nationwide monthly burned area algorithm, readers will expect at least a description of how end users can interact with it… Without an interface or demonstration, the system risks being perceived as a research prototype.” Response: We agree and have clarified in the revised manuscript how the system will be made accessible to end users. The automated workflow will being integrated into the Nusantara Atlas platform (www.nusantara-atlas.org), which already provides near-real-time deforestation and fire-alert data. We will publish the monthly burned-area layers on Nusantara Atlas. This will ensure operational accessibility for the public, NGOs and relevant agencies. To reflect this, the Abstract now includes: “Monthly burn-scar updates (post-December 2024 to present) are available for viewing and analysis via Nusantara Atlas (www.nusantara-atlas.org), where the system operates as an open, operational platform for public use..” The Discussion also now concludes with a paragraph explaining the implementation and access considerations in full detail: “To support wider adoption, we have integrated our burned-area maps into the Nusantara Atlas platform (www.nusantara-atlas.org), which already provides near-real-time deforestation and fire hotspots data. This integration will enable continuous updates of monthly burned-area maps and make them accessible for analysis by government agencies, NGOs, and the public. “The link between ENSO (ONI) and IOD anomalies and fire peaks is described as correlation, but no statistical modeling is provided to quantify strength of influence.” Response: We thank the reviewer for this comment. We compared the ENSO (ONI) and IOD anomalies with the burned area monthly as an additional validation exercise to verify that the burned area seasonality aligns with the expected fire season patterns linked with ENSO and IOD and reported in previous studies. Our goal was not to model the statistical strength of influence but to confirm that the temporal variations in burned area are consistent with known large-scale climate drivers. We have clarified this point in the Discussion section. The revised text now explicitly notes that the analysis is descriptive. We wrote: “We note that this analysis is descriptive and intended to illustrate temporal co-variation between climatic indices and monthly burned-area fluctuations, rather than to quantify causality. Future work will apply statistical modelling approaches incorporating additional climatic variables such as air temperature, rainfall, vapor pressure deficit, or climatic water deficit, known drivers of fire occurrence,to estimate the strength and causality of these climatic influences.” Reviewer #2 “The abstract does not mention the methodology.” Response: We have revised the abstract to include a concise description of the method used to map burned areas: “Our approach uses a Random Forest model that classifies Sentinel-2 imagery and uses FIRMS fire hotspots to reduce false positives. The resulting 20-m monthly burned-area maps cover the entire country from January 2019 to December 2024.” “Check the text for language issues.” Response: The manuscript has been carefully read to correct minor grammatical and typographical issues, ensuring clear and standard English throughout. “Line 67: Provide some references regarding the use of Landsat data in Indonesia.” Response: We have added the following reference to support the statement about Landsat’s use for burned-area mapping in Indonesia by the Indonesian government: https://sipongi.gakkum.kehutanan.go.id/indikasi-luas-kebakaran In this reference, it is written: “The area of forest and land fires is calculated burned-areas on Landsat-8 OLI/TIRS image analysis” “Line 81: ‘with advanced machine learning algorithms’ – State exactly which methods were used.” Response: We have clarified that the workflow uses the Random Forest classifier implemented in Google Earth Engine. The sentence now reads: “a method that combines time-series Sentinel-2 imagery with a machine learning classification model (Random Forest), implemented within the Google Earth Engine.” “Line 91: ‘To date, no automated burned area detection system exists for Indonesia.’ I found several papers using AI for burnt area detection… How can the authors claim that their method is the only one?” Response: We appreciate this correction; and have revised the sentence for accuracy. We now state: “While previous studies have proposed promising methodologies for monthly burned-area mapping in Indonesia, using Sentinel-2 and other remote sensing inputs (Vetrita et al., 2025; Arjasakusuma et al., 2022), none have yet delivered an automated, nationwide, monthly burned-area mapping system that operates continuously.” This distinguishes our contribution in terms of spatial coverage, temporal frequency, and operational automation. “Line 94: Explain the ‘FIRMS’ dataset, as it might be new to some readers.” Response: We have added the following text that explains the FIRMS dataset: We now say in the Introduction: “Our method integrates high-frequency Sentinel-2 time series (every 2–5 days) with FIRMS (Fire Information for Resource Management System) daily fire alerts (Giglio et al., 2016), which are derived from MODIS (Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectroradiometer) sensors onboard NASA’s Terra and Aqua satellites and the VIIRS (Visible Infrared Imaging Radiometer Suite) sensors onboard the Suomi NPP and NOAA-20 satellites (NASA, 2025). These instruments detect daily thermal infrared anomalies associated with active combustion. In this study, the resulting fire hotspot detections serve as both spatial and temporal filters for identifying candidate burned areas detected and delineated using Sentinel-2 imagery.” “What is the difference between this paper and the previous one (line 79)?” Response: We now clarify this distinction in the Introduction section: “Our earlier study (Gaveau et al., 2021) produced an annual burned-area product suitable for retrospective analysis, whereas the present study develops a monthly, automated system designed for near-real-time monitoring, enabling continuous national updates.” “Figure 1 is very simple. The paper is fine without it as it is. Consider adding more detail or removing it.” Response: We have removed Figure 1. “The text uses many abbreviations without explaining them fully.” Response: We have ensured that all abbreviations (e.g., GEE, FIRMS, NBR, ONI, IOD, etc.) are defined upon first use in the manuscript. We replace the BA abbreviation with “burned-area” “I don't understand why 6.25 hectares was selected as the threshold…” Response: We thank the reviewer for raising this point. Our classification system can detect burn scars smaller than 6.25 ha; however, we adopted this threshold to align with the official minimum mapping unit (MMU) used by the Indonesian Ministry of Forestry for national burned-area assessments. This ensures comparability with official datasets and legal frameworks. Smaller patches are filtered from the published layer to meet this national standard. The revised manuscript now makes this clear in the Introduction section: “ The workflow generates monthly burn-scar maps at 20-meter resolution, with a minimum mapping unit of 6.25 hectares — aligned with the official minimum burn-scar size recognized by Indonesian authorities” (MoEF): Indonesia’s Second Forest Reference Emission Level (FREL) Submission to the UNFCCC, Ministry of Environment and Forestry (MoEF), Jakarta, Indonesia, 2022. https://redd.unfccc.int/files/modified_2nd_frl_indonesia_20220529_clean.pdf “In section 3.2, please explain what happens in the different phases of each oscillation regarding precipitation, temperature, etc., and how these factors affect burned areas.” Response: We have added a paragraph in Section 3.2 explaining why positive IOD and El Niño (ONI) phases typically increase fire risk, while negative phases reduce it. We wrote in Section 3.2: “During positive IOD and El Niño phases, reduced convection and rainfall lead to drier and warmer conditions across much of Indonesia, increasing fuel flammability and extending the dry season. Conversely, La Niña and negative IOD phases enhance rainfall and humidity, reducing fire occurrence.” This provides the climatic context for the observed burned-area variations. We note in the Discussion section that future work will apply statistical modelling approaches incorporating additional climatic variables such as air temperature, rainfall, vapor pressure deficit, or climatic water deficit, known drivers of fire occurrence (Descals et al., 2022), to estimate the causality of these climatic influences. ________________________________________ Data Availability Reviewer #1 expressed concern that data were not fully available. We have clarified in the Data Availability Statement that: • All input datasets (Sentinel-2 SR, FIRMS, MODIS MCD64A1) are publicly accessible. • The monthly burned-area outputs will be hosted openly via the Nusantara Atlas upon acceptance. Thus, we will include the link to the dataset in the accepted version. ________________________________________ We believe these revisions address all reviewer concerns and substantially improve the manuscript’s clarity, rigor, and accessibility. Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0331831.r002
22 Jan 2026 Decision Letter - Bijeesh Veettil, Editor -->PONE-D-25-45724R1-->-->Nationwide Monthly Burned Area monitoring in Indonesia using Sentinel-2-->-->PLOS One Dear Dr. Gaveau, 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 Mar 08 2026 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.. 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.. 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.. 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 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 . 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 . 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 . 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, Bijeesh Kozhikkodan Veettil 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. [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 ******** -->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: No ****** -->3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? --> Reviewer #1: 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.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.-->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.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: No ****** -->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 ****** -->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: The authors provide a detailed narrative of analytical steps using Sentinel-2 compositing, Random Forest classification, post-classification filtering, validation, and dissemination via a web platform. However, these steps are described as analytical procedures rather than as components of an automated processing system. Specifically: a. The manuscript does not clearly describe whether the processing chain runs automatically on a fixed schedule. b. How data ingestion, processing, quality control, and output publishing are orchestrated c. Whether human intervention is required at any stage d. No workflow diagram or system architecture figure is presented to illustrate,the interaction between platforms (Google Earth Engine, FIRMS, external climate datasets), and data flow from raw inputs to final products, and The interface between analysis and the Nusantara Atlas website e. The manuscript suggests that burned-area results are “made available” through the Nusantara Atlas website, but it remains unclear whether the website is dynamically connected to the processing chain, or whether results are manually exported and uploaded. f. The authors rely on several independent systems (Google Earth Engine, FIRMS, and a web visualization platform), yet the manuscript does not explain how these components are programmatically integrated, and whether a central controller or pipeline manages execution across platforms. To substantiate the claim of automation, the authors should: � Explicitly describe the nature of the processing system � Include a workflow or system architecture diagram � Clearly distinguish between Analytical methods (classification, filtering, validation), and Operational automation (execution, updating, publishing).Without these additions, the manuscript primarily documents burned-area analysis and result dissemination via a website, rather than a demonstrably automated monitoring system. ****** -->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 published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.). 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 For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy..-->..--> Reviewer #1: 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.] To ensure your figures meet our technical requirements, please review our figure guidelines: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/figures You may also use PLOS’s free figure tool, NAAS, to help you prepare publication quality figures: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/figures#loc-tools-for-figure-preparation. NAAS will assess whether your figures meet our technical requirements by comparing each figure against our figure specifications. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0331831.r003
Revision 2
4 Mar 2026 Author Response Response to Reviewers Manuscript title: Nationwide Monthly Burned Area Monitoring in Indonesia Using Sentinel-2 Manuscript ID: PONE-D-25-45724R1 Authors: D.L.A. Gaveau, A. Descals, M.A. Salim Journal: PLOS ONE General Response We thank the Academic Editor and both reviewers for their constructive and insightful comments. We have revised the manuscript accordingly. Below we address each comment point-by-point. Reviewer comments are reproduced in italics, followed by our responses in plain text. Reviewer #1 “The authors provide a detailed narrative of analytical steps… however these are described as analytical procedures rather than components of an automated processing system.” Response: We thank the reviewer for this insightful comment. We agree that the original manuscript did not sufficiently distinguish between the analytical methodology and the operational implementation of the processing chain. In response, we have revised the manuscript and added a dedicated description of the operational system as Supplementary Information. We clarified the operational and automated nature of the processing chain. We added Supplementary Methods, describing execution, scheduling, orchestration, and system integration. We added Figure S1, illustrating the system architecture and data flow. We revised terminology throughout (e.g., “operational”, “largely automated”) for precision “The manuscript does not clearly describe whether the processing chain runs automatically on a fixed schedule.” Response: We have now explicitly described the execution schedule in Supplementary Methods S1. The system operates on a fixed monthly schedule, automatically initiated on the 5th day of each month, allowing for Sentinel-2 data latency. “How data ingestion, processing, quality control, and output publishing are orchestrated.” Response: Supplementary Methods S1 now describes the orchestration of: • Automated Sentinel-2 data access within Google Earth Engine • Automated FIRMS hotspot retrieval and ingestion • Scripted GEE processing workflows • Automated post-processing via Python scripts • Dissemination through Nusantara Atlas “ Whether human intervention is required at any stage.” Response: We have clarified that the workflow is largely automated, with human involvement limited to exception handling, such as system failures. No manual intervention is required during routine monthly execution. “No workflow diagram or system architecture figure is presented” Response: We have added Figure S1, which presents a schematic of: Data sources (Sentinel-2, FIRMS) Google Earth Engine processing Cloud storage Post-processing Nusantara Atlas dissemination “ The manuscript suggests that burned-area results are “made available” through the Nusantara Atlas website, but it remains unclear whether the website is dynamically connected… or manually uploaded.” Supplementary Methods S1 now clarifies that burned-area outputs are: Exported automatically from GEE to Google Cloud Storage Accessed programmatically by Nusantara Atlas services We revised wording in the manuscript to state that products are made available via Nusantara Atlas, avoiding any implication of manual upload steps. “The authors rely on several independent systems (Google Earth Engine, FIRMS, and a web visualization platform), yet the manuscript does not explain how components are programmatically integrated” Supplementary Methods S1 now describes the integration pipeline, including: Python-based scheduling and orchestration Automated data exchange between GEE, cloud storage, and post-processing services Programmatic linkage to Nusantara Atlas We also clarify that Google Earth Engine serves as the core execution environment, with external scripts coordinating post-processing and dissemination. “Explicitly describe the nature of the processing system Response: We have followed this recommendation by: Separating analytical methodology (main manuscript) Operational automation & architecture (Supplementary Methods) Providing Figure S1 (workflow/system diagram) We also revised terminology throughout the manuscript for clarity and accuracy. Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Second Response to Reviewers.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0331831.r004
9 Mar 2026 Decision Letter - Bijeesh Veettil, Editor Nationwide Monthly Burned Area monitoring in Indonesia using Sentinel-2 PONE-D-25-45724R2 Dear Dr. Gaveau, 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. For questions related to billing, please contact and clicking the ‘Update My Information' link at the top of the page. For questions related to billing, please contact and clicking the ‘Update My Information' link at the top of the page. For questions related to billing, please contact 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, Bijeesh Kozhikkodan Veettil Academic Editor PLOS One Additional Editor Comments (optional): Reviewers' comments: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0331831.r005
Formally Accepted
Acceptance Letter - Bijeesh Veettil, Editor PONE-D-25-45724R2 PLOS One Dear Dr. Gaveau, 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 You will receive further instructions from the production team, including instructions on how to review your proof when it is ready. Please keep in mind that we are working through a large volume of accepted articles, so please give us a few days 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. You will receive an invoice from PLOS for your publication fee after your manuscript has reached the completed accept phase. If you receive an email requesting payment before acceptance or for any other service, this may be a phishing scheme. Learn how to identify phishing emails and protect your accounts at https://explore.plos.org/phishing. 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. Bijeesh Kozhikkodan Veettil Academic Editor PLOS One https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0331831.r006

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 .