The impact of international megaproject social responsibility on satisfaction with the environmental compensation mechanism: The role of stakeholder participation

Zixuan Zeng; Yongtao Shen; Jijun Yang; Thammanoon Hengsadeekul

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0334291

Peer Review History

Original SubmissionJune 11, 2025
25 Jul 2025 Decision Letter - Md. Feroz Kabir, Editor PONE-D-25-30801The effect of international megaproject social responsibility on satisfaction of environmental compensation mechanism: role of stakeholder participationPLOS ONE Dear Dr. Zeng, Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process. Please submit your revised manuscript by Sep 08 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, Md. Feroz Kabir, PhD, BPT, MPT, MPH, BPED, MPED 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 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. 3. Please provide details regarding participant consent. In the ethics statement in the Methods and online submission information, please ensure that you have specified (1) whether consent was informed and (2) what type you obtained (for instance, written or verbal, and if verbal, how it was documented and witnessed). If your study included minors, state whether you obtained consent from parents or guardians. If the need for consent was waived by the ethics committee, please include this information. If you are reporting a retrospective study of medical records or archived samples, please ensure that you have discussed whether all data were fully anonymized before you accessed them and/or whether the IRB or ethics committee waived the requirement for informed consent. If patients provided informed written consent to have data from their medical records used in research, please include this information. 4. Thank you for stating the following financial disclosure: [This study is supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (12261006).]. 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. 5. We note that your Data Availability Statement is currently as follows: [All relevant data are within the manuscript and its Supporting Information files.] Please confirm at this time whether or not your submission contains all raw data required to replicate the results of your study. Authors must share the “minimal data set” for their submission. PLOS defines the minimal data set to consist of the data required to replicate all study findings reported in the article, as well as related metadata and methods (https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-minimal-data-set-definition). For example, authors should submit the following data: - The values behind the means, standard deviations and other measures reported; - The values used to build graphs; - The points extracted from images for analysis. Authors do not need to submit their entire data set if only a portion of the data was used in the reported study. If your submission does not contain these data, please either upload them as Supporting Information files or deposit them to a stable, public repository and provide us with the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers. For a list of recommended repositories, please see https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/recommended-repositories. If there are ethical or legal restrictions on sharing a de-identified data set, please explain them in detail (e.g., data contain potentially sensitive information, data are owned by a third-party organization, etc.) and who has imposed them (e.g., an ethics committee). Please also provide contact information for a data access committee, ethics committee, or other institutional body to which data requests may be sent. If data are owned by a third party, please indicate how others may request data access. 6.Please upload a new copy of Figure xxxx as the detail is not clear. Please follow the link for more information: https://blogs.plos.org/plos/2019/06/looking-good-tips-for-creating-your-plos-figures-graphics/"" https://blogs.plos.org/plos/2019/06/looking-good-tips-for-creating-your-plos-figures-graphics/ 7. If any table files for review show as item type ‘other’ please change to item type ‘Table’ as the reviewer does not have access to these ’other’ files. 8. We are unable to open your Figure files [Fig 1.eps and Fig 2.eps]. Please kindly revise as necessary and re-upload. 9. If the reviewer comments include a recommendation to cite specific previously published works, please review and evaluate these publications to determine whether they are relevant and should be cited. There is no requirement to cite these works unless the editor has indicated otherwise. Additional Editor Comments: Please submit the revised manuscript within the next 20 days. [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: No Reviewer #2: Partly ******** 2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: No ****** 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: 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: No Reviewer #2: No ****** 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: The abstract format should follow the PLOS ONE format. The objectives should be specific and clearly stated. The methodology is unclear The study design, eligibility criteria, study procedures, sampling, and population were not properly stated. The overall presentation of the manuscript should follow the PLOS guidelines. Discussion is the replication of the result here, but it should be compared and contrasted with the evidence. Reviewer #2: Your objectives are not clearly stated. The design, tools, and study procedures should be rectified more. The manuscript should follow the PLOS ONE format. The eligibility criteria should be clearly stated. The strength and limitation are not focused here. The study recommendations should be specified. The discussion and conclusion are not synchronized properly. References should be stated properly. ****** 6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean? ). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files. If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public. Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy . Reviewer #1: No Reviewer #2: Yes: Sharmila Jahan ******** [NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.] While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/ . PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org . Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0334291.r001
Revision 1
17 Aug 2025 Author Response Manuscript ID: PONE-D-25-30801 Title: The effect of international megaproject social responsibility on satisfaction of environmental compensation mechanism: role of stakeholder participation Dear Dr. Md. Feroz Kabir and the PLOS ONE Editorial Team, We sincerely thank you and the reviewers for the thoughtful assessment of our manuscript and for the opportunity to revise. We have carefully addressed every point raised by the Academic Editor and Reviewers #1 and #2. Below we provide a detailed, point-by-point response. All changes are highlighted in the file“Revised Manuscript with Track Changes”; page and line numbers cited in our responses refer to that version. Summary of major revisions� 1.Reformatted the entire manuscript to conform to PLOS ONE style, including the structured Abstract and file-naming requirements. 2.Clarified and made specific, testable objectives (Abstract and Introduction). 3.Substantially expanded Methods to report study design, setting, eligibility criteria (inclusion/exclusion), sampling strategy and size rationale, study procedures, instruments/measures, and a more rigorous statistical analysis plan (assumptions, diagnostics, and robustness checks). 4.Added a detailed Ethics and Consent statement specifying whether consent was informed and its type . 5.Updated the Data Availability statement and provided the minimal dataset required to reproduce the results [as Supporting Information S1_Data]. 6.Completed and uploaded the Inclusivity in Global Research questionnaire as Supporting Information S2. 7.Added the Role of the Funder statement in the cover letter: “The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.” 8.Rewrote the Discussion to compare and contrast our findings with prior evidence, synchronized the Conclusions accordingly, and added a focused Strengths and Limitations subsection with actionable recommendations. 9.Replaced Figures 1-2 with high-resolution, journal-compliant files, verified via PACE; clarified one figure’s readability and corrected any table item types mislabeled as “other.” Since the "table" type was not found during the upload process, I chose to use “Support Information”instead. 10.Edited the manuscript for clarity and English usage and corrected references to follow journal style. 11.We believe these revisions have strengthened the clarity, transparency, and rigor of the manuscript, and we are grateful for the guidance that led to these improvements. A detailed response to each comment follows. The following section provides our point-by-point responses to the comments from Reviewers #1 and #2. Reviewer #1 Comment 1: The abstract format should follow the PLOS ONE format. Response: I appreciate this suggestion. We have reformatted the Abstract to comply with the PLOS ONE structured format, including Background, Methods, Results, and Conclusions. The revised abstract is now consistent with the journal’s guidelines (see [Page2-3,Line23-54]). Comment 2: The objectives should be specific and clearly stated. Response: Thank you for pointing this out. I have revised both the Abstract and the Introduction to clarify and specify the study objectives. The revised version now highlights the main research question and measurable goals more explicitly (see [Page 2, Lines30-36;Page4-5,86-95]). Comment 3: The methodology is unclear. Response: I agree with this concern. I have substantially revised the Methods section to clarify the study design, sampling strategy, eligibility criteria, study population, and procedures. Details of the instruments and analytical approaches have also been added for greater transparency (see [Page 16, Lines 306-317]). Comment 4: The study design, eligibility criteria, study procedures, sampling, and population were not properly stated. Response: In response, I have comprehensively expanded the Methods section. Specifically, I now provide explicit descriptions of the study design, inclusion and exclusion criteria, recruitment procedures, sampling method, and participant characteristics. This ensures that the methodology is rigorous and replicable (see [Page 18, Lines 361-379]). Comment 5: The overall presentation of the manuscript should follow the PLOS guidelines. Response: Thank you for this important reminder. I have reformatted the manuscript in line with the PLOS ONE style requirements, including headings, references, figure/table captions, and file naming conventions. This has improved the readability and consistency of the manuscript (see Table of Contents). Comment 6: Discussion is the replication of the result here, but it should be compared and contrasted with the evidence. Response: I appreciate this observation. I have rewritten the Discussion section to avoid repetition of the results. The revised version now provides a critical comparison of our findings with existing literature, highlighting both consistencies and differences, and offering interpretations supported by evidence (see [Page 42, Lines 587-590;Page 44, Lines 628-631;Page 45, Lines 638-642;]). Reviewer #2 Comment 1: Your objectives are not clearly stated. Response: Thank you for this observation. I have revised both the Abstract and the Introduction to clearly articulate the study objectives. The revised version now specifies the primary research question and the measurable goals of the study (see [Page 2, Lines 30–35], Abstract; [Page 5, Lines 92-99]). Comment 2: The design, tools, and study procedures should be rectified more. Response: I appreciate this important comment. The Methodology section has been expanded to describe the research design, survey instruments, and study procedures in detail. I clarified the rationale for the design, the development and validation of the questionnaire, and the steps of data collection and analysis (see [Page 5, Lines 307–321]). Comment 3: The manuscript should follow the PLOS ONE format. Response: Thank you for this reminder. I have reformatted the manuscript throughout according to PLOS ONE guidelines, including section headings, structured abstract, figure and table captions, and references. These changes ensure compliance with the journal’s requirements (see throughout the manuscript). Comment 4: The eligibility criteria should be clearly stated. Response: I agree with this suggestion. The Sample and Data Collection section now includes explicit eligibility criteria for participants, covering inclusion and exclusion criteria. This revision clarifies who was eligible to participate and ensures transparency in the study design (see [Page 17-18, Lines 361-379], “Sample and Data Collection”). Comment 5: The strength and limitation are not focused here. Response: Thank you for highlighting this point. I have added a Strengths and Limitations subsection in the Discussion. This section explicitly outlines the study’s strengths, such as the transnational context and robust statistical analysis, and its limitations, such as reliance on self-reported survey data and the geographic scope. This addition provides a balanced evaluation of the study (see [Page X, Lines XX–XX], “Discussion”). Comment 6: The study recommendations should be specified. Response: I appreciate this comment. I have expanded the Conclusion to include clear, practical recommendations for international megaproject managers and policymakers. These recommendations emphasize stakeholder engagement, long-term monitoring, and the integration of social responsibility throughout the project life cycle (see [Page 42-48], “Conclusion”). Comment 7: References should be stated properly. Response: I appreciate this reminder. I have thoroughly revised the References section to ensure compliance with PLOS ONE citation style. Formatting errors have been corrected, missing information has been added, and the references have been cross-checked for accuracy and consistency (see [Page 49-53], “References”). I sincerely thank the Academic Editor and both reviewers for their constructive comments and valuable suggestions, which have greatly improved the clarity, rigor, and overall quality of my manuscript. I hope that the revisions and detailed responses provided here satisfactorily address all concerns. I remain grateful for the opportunity to revise and resubmit, and I look forward to your favorable consideration of the revised manuscript. Sincerely, Zixuan Zeng Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0334291.r002
24 Aug 2025 Decision Letter - Md. Feroz Kabir, Editor PONE-D-25-30801R1The effect of international megaproject social responsibility on satisfaction of environmental compensation mechanism: role of stakeholder participationPLOS ONE Dear Dr. Zeng, Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process. Please submit your revised manuscript by Oct 08 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, Md. Feroz Kabir, PhD, BPT, MPT, MPH, BPED, MPED Academic Editor PLOS ONE Journal Requirements: If the reviewer comments include a recommendation to cite specific previously published works, please review and evaluate these publications to determine whether they are relevant and should be cited. There is no requirement to cite these works unless the editor has indicated otherwise. Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice. Additional Editor Comments: Please correct the English thoroughly and submit it within the next 15 days. [Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.] [NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.] While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/ . PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org . Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0334291.r003
Revision 2
10 Sep 2025 Author Response The following section provides our point-by-point responses to the comments from Reviewers #1 and #2. Reviewer #1 Comment 1: The abstract format should follow the PLOS ONE format. Response: I appreciate this suggestion. We have reformatted the Abstract to comply with the PLOS ONE structured format, including Background, Methods, Results, and Conclusions. The revised abstract is now consistent with the journal’s guidelines (see [Page2-3,Line23-54]). Comment 2: The objectives should be specific and clearly stated. Response: Thank you for pointing this out. I have revised both the Abstract and the Introduction to clarify and specify the study objectives. The revised version now highlights the main research question and measurable goals more explicitly (see [Page 2, Lines30-36;Page4-5,86-95]). Comment 3: The methodology is unclear. Response: I agree with this concern. I have substantially revised the Methods section to clarify the study design, sampling strategy, eligibility criteria, study population, and procedures. Details of the instruments and analytical approaches have also been added for greater transparency (see [Page 16, Lines 306-317]). Comment 4: The study design, eligibility criteria, study procedures, sampling, and population were not properly stated. Response: In response, I have comprehensively expanded the Methods section. Specifically, I now provide explicit descriptions of the study design, inclusion and exclusion criteria, recruitment procedures, sampling method, and participant characteristics. This ensures that the methodology is rigorous and replicable (see [Page 18, Lines 361-379]). Comment 5: The overall presentation of the manuscript should follow the PLOS guidelines. Response: Thank you for this important reminder. I have reformatted the manuscript in line with the PLOS ONE style requirements, including headings, references, figure/table captions, and file naming conventions. This has improved the readability and consistency of the manuscript (see Table of Contents). Comment 6: Discussion is the replication of the result here, but it should be compared and contrasted with the evidence. Response: I appreciate this observation. I have rewritten the Discussion section to avoid repetition of the results. The revised version now provides a critical comparison of our findings with existing literature, highlighting both consistencies and differences, and offering interpretations supported by evidence (see [Page 42, Lines 587-590;Page 44, Lines 628-631;Page 45, Lines 638-642;]). Reviewer #2 Comment 1: Your objectives are not clearly stated. Response: Thank you for this observation. I have revised both the Abstract and the Introduction to clearly articulate the study objectives. The revised version now specifies the primary research question and the measurable goals of the study (see [Page 2, Lines 30–35], Abstract; [Page 5, Lines 92-99]). Comment 2: The design, tools, and study procedures should be rectified more. Response: I appreciate this important comment. The Methodology section has been expanded to describe the research design, survey instruments, and study procedures in detail. I clarified the rationale for the design, the development and validation of the questionnaire, and the steps of data collection and analysis (see [Page 5, Lines 307–321]). Comment 3: The manuscript should follow the PLOS ONE format. Response: Thank you for this reminder. I have reformatted the manuscript throughout according to PLOS ONE guidelines, including section headings, structured abstract, figure and table captions, and references. These changes ensure compliance with the journal’s requirements (see throughout the manuscript). Comment 4: The eligibility criteria should be clearly stated. Response: I agree with this suggestion. The Sample and Data Collection section now includes explicit eligibility criteria for participants, covering inclusion and exclusion criteria. This revision clarifies who was eligible to participate and ensures transparency in the study design (see [Page 17-18, Lines 361-379], “Sample and Data Collection”). Comment 5: The strength and limitation are not focused here. Response: Thank you for highlighting this point. I have added a Strengths and Limitations subsection in the Discussion. This section explicitly outlines the study’s strengths, such as the transnational context and robust statistical analysis, and its limitations, such as reliance on self-reported survey data and the geographic scope. This addition provides a balanced evaluation of the study (see [Page X, Lines XX–XX], “Discussion”). Comment 6: The study recommendations should be specified. Response: I appreciate this comment. I have expanded the Conclusion to include clear, practical recommendations for international megaproject managers and policymakers. These recommendations emphasize stakeholder engagement, long-term monitoring, and the integration of social responsibility throughout the project life cycle (see [Page 42-48], “Conclusion”). Comment 7: References should be stated properly. Response: I appreciate this reminder. I have thoroughly revised the References section to ensure compliance with PLOS ONE citation style. Formatting errors have been corrected, missing information has been added, and the references have been cross-checked for accuracy and consistency (see [Page 49-53], “References”). I sincerely thank the Academic Editor and both reviewers for their constructive comments and valuable suggestions, which have greatly improved the clarity, rigor, and overall quality of my manuscript. I hope that the revisions and detailed responses provided here satisfactorily address all concerns. I remain grateful for the opportunity to revise and resubmit, and I look forward to your favorable consideration of the revised manuscript. Sincerely, Zixuan Zeng Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Response_to_Reviewers_auresp_2.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0334291.r004
24 Sep 2025 Decision Letter - Han Lin, Editor The impact of international megaproject social responsibility on satisfaction with the environmental compensation mechanism: The role of stakeholder participation PONE-D-25-30801R2 Dear Dr. Zeng, 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 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, Han Lin Academic Editor PLOS ONE Additional Editor Comments (optional): Reviewer #3: Reviewer #4: 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 #3: All comments have been addressed Reviewer #4: (No Response) ******** 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 #3: Yes Reviewer #4: Yes ****** 3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #3: Yes Reviewer #4: 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 #3: Yes Reviewer #4: 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 #3: Yes Reviewer #4: 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 #3: This study makes a strong contribution to both the academic understanding of megaproject management and the practical implementation of environmental compensation mechanisms. We recommend its acceptance for publication in PLOS ONE. Minor Suggestions for Consideration While the manuscript is ready for publication, we offer a few minor suggestions that could further enhance its quality and impact. These are not mandatory changes but are provided for the authors' consideration: Statistical Analysis: Given the mediating role of stakeholder participation, a brief discussion in the limitations section about the potential for unobserved variables or measurement error could be a valuable addition. While the multiple regression approach is valid and effective, mentioning the more advanced structural equation modeling (SEM) as a potential avenue for future research would demonstrate a broader methodological awareness. Discussion Section: The discussion effectively compares the findings with existing literature. A slight expansion on the practical applications of your findings, perhaps in the form of specific, actionable recommendations for project managers on how to effectively engage stakeholders to improve satisfaction, could further strengthen this section. Conclusion: The conclusion is strong and concise. Re-emphasizing the key theoretical and practical contributions in a single, powerful concluding statement would be an excellent final touch. Reviewer #4: many research paper about satisfaction ,such latent variables,,many authors use structural equation model(SEM),why we use multi variables equation instead of SEM? ****** 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 #3: No Reviewer #4: No ******** https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0334291.r005
Formally Accepted
Acceptance Letter - Han Lin, Editor PONE-D-25-30801R2 PLOS ONE Dear Dr. Zeng, 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. Han Lin Academic Editor PLOS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0334291.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 .