-->PONE-D-25-54226-->-->Andean agriculture and hand tools: a qualitative approach of exploration of needs, barriers, and opportunities for innovation-->-->PLOS One

Dear Dr. Cruz-Ausejo Liliana,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Feb 18 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.

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 https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

In-Ju Kim, Ph.D.

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. Thank you for stating the following in the Acknowledgments Section of your manuscript:

“This work was funded by the Consejo Nacional de Ciencia, Tecnología e Innovación Tecnológica (CONCYTEC) and the Programa Nacional de Investigación Científica y Estudios Avanzados (PROCIENCIA) within the framework of the E077-2023-01-BM “Becas en Programas de Doctorado en Alianzas Interinstitucionales” contest, grant number (PE501090201-2024-PROCIENCIA-BM) and the E033-2023-01-BM “Alianzas Interinstitucionales para Programas de Doctorado”, grant number N° PE5010843066-2023-PROCIENCIA-BM).

We would like to thank psychologist Enma Maco Condezo (EMC) for her role in the interviews.”

We note that you have provided additional information within the Acknowledgements Section that is not currently declared in your Funding Statement. Please note that funding information should not appear in the Acknowledgments section or other areas of your manuscript. We will only publish funding information present in the Funding Statement section of the online submission form.

Please remove any funding-related text from the manuscript and let us know how you would like to update your Funding Statement. Currently, your Funding Statement reads as follows:

“L.C-A was funded by the Consejo Nacional de Ciencia, Tecnología e Innovación Tecnológica (CONCYTEC) and the Programa Nacional de Investigación Científica y Estudios Avanzados (PROCIENCIA) within the framework of the E077-2023-01-BM “Becas en Programas de Doctorado en Alianzas Interinstitucionales” contest, grant number (PE501090201-2024-PROCIENCIA-BM) and the E033-2023-01-BM “Alianzas Interinstitucionales para Programas de Doctorado”, grant number N° PE5010843066-2023-PROCIENCIA-BM). The sponsor did not play any role in the study design, data collection and analysis, publication decision, or manuscript preparation. “

Please include your amended statements within your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf.

4. We note that you have indicated that there are restrictions to data sharing for this study. PLOS only allows data to be available upon request if there are legal or ethical restrictions on sharing data publicly. For more information on unacceptable data access restrictions, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-unacceptable-data-access-restrictions.

Before we proceed with your manuscript, please address the following prompts:

a) If there are ethical or legal restrictions on sharing a de-identified data set, please explain them in detail (e.g., data contain potentially identifying or sensitive patient information, data are owned by a third-party organization, etc.) and who has imposed them (e.g., a Research Ethics Committee or Institutional Review Board, etc.). Please also provide contact information for a data access committee, ethics committee, or other institutional body to which data requests may be sent.

b) If there are no restrictions, please upload the minimal anonymized data set necessary to replicate your study findings 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. You also have the option of uploading the data as Supporting Information files, but we would recommend depositing data directly to a data repository if possible.

We will update your Data Availability statement on your behalf to reflect the information you provide.

5. 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 :

Thank you for submitting your manuscript (PONE-D-25-54226) entitled "Andean agriculture and hand tools: a qualitative approach of exploration of needs, barriers, and opportunities for innovation" to PLOS ONE.

The manuscript has now been evaluated by two expert reviewers. Both reviewers recognise the novelty, relevance, and potential contribution of the study, particularly in documenting farmer perspectives on hand tool use in Andean agriculture, an underrepresented area within occupational health, ergonomics, and innovation studies. However, both reviewers raise substantial methodological, analytical, and interpretive concerns that must be addressed before the manuscript can be considered for publication.

On this basis, a major revision is required to incorporate these changes. These changes will enhance the manuscript's alignment with PLOS ONE's criteria for technical soundness, reproducibility, and broad relevance. Please address the following key points in your revision:

1) Methodological enhancements: Clarify the two interview guides' objectives, differences, and links to research questions in the Methods section. Defend the focus on potato harvesting. Specify if themes emerged from coding or guides.

2) Ergonomic and quantitative integration: Include tool dimensions (weight, length, size) and ergonomic analysis to address health/MSD issues from the introduction. Quantify findings (e.g., theme frequencies) to make results more robust, accounting for gender differences.

3) Results and visualisation: Enhance tool modification sketches (e.g., via CAD). Avoid quote repetition. Clarify ambiguities in language and consolidate related findings (e.g., weight preferences).

4) Discussion and broader implications: Base discussions on quantified results. Expand on shifts to manufactured tools, mechanisation impacts, blacksmith decline, and repair sustainability. Link tradeoffs (productivity vs. comfort) explicitly to data. Rewrite the conclusion to clearly highlight the major findings.

5) Data sharing: Anonymise and share source testimonies per PLOS ONE policy. Explain any ethical constraints.

6) Minor edits: Correct terminology, rephrase for neutrality, avoid overgeneralization, and place figures in-text.

Provide a point-by-point response to these comments and the original reviewer’ details. We look forward to your revised submission.

[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: N/A

Reviewer #2: N/A

**********

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

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: No

**********

-->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: Abstract: Concise and well-formed

Introduction: well written

Material and methods: nicely explained, but no scientific approach is used to collect data.

Results: Tables and figures are elaborated very well. Each head was clearly explained. The statements made by participants clearly depict the existing situation of respondents by using hand tools. It is a detailed qualitative approach for analyzing hand tools.

However;

In the introduction, health hazards and MSDs caused by the use of poorly designed hand tools were discussed. But in the study, the ergonomic points of the tools' analysis were missing

Since no statistical tool has been employed to infer the findings, the results do not appear to be statistically sound.

· Health risks and MSDs brought on by using a hand tool with inadequate design were covered in the introduction. However, in the study, ergonomic tool analysis is absent.

Second, the results are not inferred using any statistical tools. As a result, the study's overall findings are lacking. The result should focus on some clear and quantifiable information, like which parts of the hand tool were deemed to have poor ergonomic design or require revision.

Further, both men and women were included in the study as samples; however, they differ greatly in their physical characteristics and how they use hand tools.

· In the results, dimensions of hand tools are missing, which are necessary for assessing the tool, such as weight, length, and size. It is not ergonomically sound to analyze tools just based on statements

· Farmer-provided or farmer-made sketches for modifying the current tool design are unclear. All recommendations for creating or making changes to the tool design can be included in a sketch or drawing (in CAD). It will be a meaningful finding and feedback for further investigation.

Discussion: Comprehensively written by detailing each component.

But the discussion is only made based on statements of farmers, not on the crux of the results. A statement made by one farmer does not reflect the opinion/point of view of other farmers. So there should be some quantification of data/results to interpret the findings in a meaningful manner.

Conclusion: Not explaining the exact picture of the result. It should be rewritten to highlight the major findings of the study.

Supporting information: The detailing of each component is added and clearly exhibits the research.

Reviewer #2: The paper is a quite focused study of farmer attitudes and perceptions regarding their hand tools in a Peruvian Andean community. It is a bit reduced in terms of overall scope and sample size, the latter of which the authors acknowledge. It would have been nice to do the study across a number of communities with a smaller set of farmers in each community, to increase the generalizable nature of the results. However as this is a relatively novel aspect of a more general occupational health/literature, there is something to be learned here. My two main critiques of the paper and reason for major revisions are first, that the methods and especially the survey guides need to be more clearly explained in terms of their objectives, link to the research questions, differentiation among the two, and description of the areas covered or the technique. Sometimes the objective of a guide is only found in the results, very late for building up the understanding of the methodology. Without this, the thematic areas of the results seem rather haphazard.

Second, within the limitations of a small and potentially overly ‘unique’ (ie one village) sample size which is already acknowledged, I would urge the authors to expand a bit on the wider meaning and implications of the results. What about the observation that manufactured tools are increasingly prevalent and older, bespoke tools are increasingly rare? Are there implications from increasing mechanization and demographic change?

In general, there is a need for a bit more detail in certain areas of the paper where the logical flow or background to information is missing, as is noted below in the detailed line by line comments.

Also, for ease of reviewing if I review this manuscript again, I would ask that the figures be placed within the text, it makes it much easier and actually increases the speed and quality of the review.

One last point, I have indicated that I don’t feel this paper meets the data sharing standards of PLOS One. That is because individual access with consent of the authors to the data is not really essential in my view. It should be possible to anonymize the source testimony material and erase any personal mentions such that the database would remain as a textual resource showing in a more detailed way all the attitudes towards tools and their context. If the ethics board is denying this option then the authors may claim so, and perhaps the main editor will disagree, but I would urge you just to prepare a text resource in this way, with no personal or geographic information, and share, even in the online materials. That is very broadly in line with ethics standards, especially as these are opinions about management and tools rather than personal, health, or family details.

Detailed comments with line numbers:

47 ecological variability not variety

55 Looking at your references here, I think that you should approach the statement “many of which lack ergonomic principles” with more skepticism. I am wondering whether you are conflating lack of ergonomic principles with lack of mechanization which could lead to less overall effort and fatigue? At least in some of the Andean contexts where I have worked, and in fact as you document in this paper, farmers indicate strong preference for certain of their tools and even will approach blacksmiths with particular design elements that make tools more suited to their work setting. However this may be different in Peruvian Andean contexts if all tools are increasingly manufactured outside (e.g. Brazil, China) and imported to the region – but perhaps separating effort, fatigue, and efficiency is important. you may be able to use the literature on hand tool use from beyond the region that you already cite, that will speak to this point?

62 This is a very generic reference to a textbook (Harrington 2000, Occupational Health) for the notion that tool redesign could help farmers --- could you provide a more specific reference focused on farm environments, or examples of tool design that id in fact help farmers, if you mean to link this to literature?

67 I would say “ innovating further on technological solutions “ rather than “Developing”--- the hand tools analysed are in fact already a technological solution, sometimes developed by farmers, and you are making the point here that their context and knowledge should be respected!

71-72 more details on this design model? It’s not commonly known, e.g. what do the “two diamonds” refer to? An example of more detail being needed to fully understand your objectives – a few sentences

75 are these the two objectives of the two instruments below in methods? Do a better job identifying how the methods address these two main questions, then. Also, I am thinking that the first question is more general around needs and context, and the second is more specific around their specific reactions to a set of tools in harvesting. If that is the case, use that terminology (general/context vs. specific etc.) to aid the reader’s understanding.

77 I think you need defend the choice of one particular operation of potato harvesting. Why choose that compared to say, carrot peeling or compost pile turning – tools are used for all of these? I am assuming the choice of potato harvesting was not just opportunistic? It's a pretty central focus of agriculture in Peru etc.

83 – you mention two guides but don’t say how they differed, what was the purpose of each, why two? - if that is the meaning of “and” later in the sentence, enumerate these as the two purposes. More detail and clarity needed.

142 “Data are presented according to the interview guide used” but I don’t understand the difference between the two interview guides, as the methods are incomplete, and here just below you say the first interview guide described perceptions, but again it’s not clear and doesn’t distinguish this from the second guide.

151 Task category – is this a structure from the interview guide, or an emergent theme from coding?—this all needs to be presented more clearly. IPerhaps linking to the figures with the different guide numbers to a greater degree within the text will help?

184 adapt as in choosing different alternatives, or adapt as in modifying their tools? Two different things. Again, the language here is not very specific and seems to lack the complexity that is promised in the introduction.

194 here I would say just children, without the definite article The – we are not talking about particular children.

196 Is this really true that there are no individual plots? Is this a communal sectoral fallow system with use rights granted by a communal entity like a consejo? Because in many areas of Peru labor exchanges may be practiced (some labor is thought of in a common way) but in fact the plots are held privately by families. It would be good to clarify this so that you are not propagating a vague or romantic image of communities holding land in common, if it is not the case, to complement what the farmer said. Maybe clarify this using a comment on this quotation.

221 it is always 7 days, or just as reported by the participants in this study? – or that this is somehow important to the particular focus on the design of hand tools? I find it hard to believe that some other factors like weather or yield levels might not make it last more or less time? In general this seems to reveal a weakness of doing a study in one community in one year, it needs to be carefully presented to not overgeneralize, and it would have been nice to have participants from a range of communities instead of just one, seems like pseudoreplication of sorts.

231 What should resemble the pick? Use parentheses to identify the referent.

247 this actually parallels what I observed in Bolivia in the 2000s, both allachu (called wiluku, there) and picks were used. Given the emphasis on physical lightness of the tools, did no one comment on the fact that a pick is more versatile with two sides but in fact obligates one to carry the weight of a function that is not always used, versus having more or less pointed allachus that are lighter and perhaps more adapted to to the main task of potato harvesting? Also, is the soil in this community rocky, so that extracting or moving rocks is such an important task?

248 is the prevalence of blacksmiths decreasing or staying the same? Did you ask about this? It seems like if blacksmithing skills are lost this would be a natural explanation for the transition to different pick tools that come from outside, and this could be an implication of the study, a need to support more local tradespeople or accomplish that function within local agencies or development organizations?

275 “3.0+/- 0.2 kg” is the +/- a standard error, standard deviation range mentioned by interviews, what? Please note quickly.

281 I think that what p5 is describing here is a sort of local optimum of weight, neither too light or too heavy , as you also say in lines 343 – maybe these results on intermediate weight and relation to age and gender could be consolidated.

317 this is the same quote as in the previous section that presumably comes from the first interview guide and here the second? It seems a bit repetitive as it makes the same point.

332 only now you describe what the second interview guide is about! All this should be described clearly in the methods section.

430 Please change to Jain et al.’s (2018) proposal for improving…. To clarify that this is a reference to an existing paper. Also Jain is not a single author, etc.

431 rephrase as “While adding environment as a new theme within their narratives” or similar. The colon is awkward here since only two words follow it. At a minimum you can say “the environmental theme” (and also refer to the figure 5 again with these themes)

446 by multiple heads please clarify whether you mean a tool with two heads (or more?) or just multiple tools with different sized heads to adapt in the field to the soil conditions.

453 I don’t know that you need a reference to explain the connection between humidity, rain and rotting of wood. Better to stay focused on the farmer viewpoints, rotting and weakening is a well known process.

462 Can you specifically point to where in your research or in which aspects farmers identified the tradeoff between productivity and comfort? I am not remembering a farmer talking about this and since it is a bit contentious, would like to have the connection to the testimonies clearly described. Would not an uncomfortable tool fatigue a farmer more and thus lead to a shortened and thus less productive work day? So it needs to be clearly explained.

478 instead of substitutes would say “acts in place of” or “substitutes for” , I slightly prefer the former because it is somewhat more neutral, not privileging formal or written learning pathways.

481 although you seek to correct a bias in favor of formal versus informal intergenerational training in the next sentences, you could strengthen that perspective in this line by saying “ but rather from the absence of training that would accompany an outside tool in a more formalized technology context” ? because I think the formal training route only applies to tools or methods that are brought from outside? (Whether or not they are effective; sometimes outside tools and formal training can be effective, but as you point out local pragmatic learning enhances a sense of ownership of the tool technology)

492 no capital C on characteristics.

502 I’m glad you recognize the sample within one community as a limitation, I agree – better to document this limitation for readers than ignore it.

512-515 You mention the way that a local repair function is an enabler but I think maybe this should be included in the last few lines that are the main prescriptive outcomes of the paper – that is, whether tools are made locally or come from outside, they will be much more valuable in communities like this one if they are repairable and modifiable. As I noted regarding the results section, it might also flag the availability of skilled blacksmiths in these communities or near to them, as a key factor in the sustainability of hand tool use that should be explored in addition to the other factors mentioned.

**********

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

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

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

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

**********

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

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.

-->PONE-D-25-54226R1-->-->Andean agriculture and hand tools: a qualitative approach of exploration of needs, barriers, and opportunities for innovation-->-->PLOS One

Dear Dr. -->Liliana Cruz-Ausejo,-->

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 May 03 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.

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 https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Prof. In-Ju Kim, Ph.D.

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:

Thank you for the revised manuscript "Andean agriculture and hand tools: a qualitative approach of exploration of needs, barriers, and opportunities for innovation" (PONE-D-25-54226R1).

The manuscript has now been evaluated by two expert reviewers. Both reviewers are satisfied with your responses to prior comments.

The manuscript is now technically sound, the data support the conclusions, the underlying data are available, and the writing is clear.

They endorse publication after minor editorial polishing.

Below, the detailed feedback is provided to substantiate the above decision.

Abstract & Introduction

• Line 35: Add phrase to mark results (e.g., “We found that hand tools used in…”).

• Line 44: Clarify/spell out “MeSH terms.”

• Line 49: Use “diversified smallholder farming” instead of “subsistence systems.”

• Ensure consistent tenses (present for general/intro; past for methods/results).

• Fix typos/transitions: lines 69 (“tools”), 72 (add period), 74–75 (“annual” not “temporary”), 76 (insert word), 78 (“important context”), 88 (add transition to “double diamond”), 93 (“define”).

Methods & Results

• Lines 97, 113, 120, 123, 129, 171, 188, 190, 197, 218: Simplify phrasing, use past tense, parentheses for supplemental refs, rephrase Jain citation, change “de-anonymized” to “anonymized,” add figure spaces.

• Lines 257, 260, 273, 288, 326, 334, 353, 368: Add comma (“collective, is…”), use “private/owned,” remind “allachu (hoe),” simplify fractions, clarify woods, confirm singular/plural, lowercase “barriers and enablers,” consistent “grip diameter.”

• Tables 2 & 3: Remove redundant circumference if equivalent; shorten title; simplify columns (absolute/percentage + denominator in heading).

• Lines 415–416, 446, 447, 474, 489, 491, 515, 538, 548, 559, 579: Clarify rust/soil wear (optional), flag second-question transition, delete redundant “however,” maintain past tense, rephrase unclear sentences (e.g., familiarity, inherent experiences), move site factors (rocky soils) to environment if better fit, add concluding sentence on heavy tools (fatigue vs. soil benefits), fix “total tool length” phrasing.

Discussion & Conclusion

• Lines 562, 579, 605, 613, 622, 633, 655: (Optional) Consider Andean body proportions for tool length; note soil type in wear; “emerged” not “emerges”; nuance to “include” technical criteria (balance with local knowledge); strengthen participatory design transition; add comma; briefly defend sample focus/limitation.

Figures

• Correct spelling/grammar: Fig. 1 (“terrain conditions,” “means of transport,” “discomfort and bodily pain”); Fig. 5 (“deficient”); capitalise first words in lists.

Please address these points in a point-by-point response and submit the final revision.

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

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

-->Comments to the Author

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

Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #2: (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 #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: N/A

**********

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

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

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

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

-->6. Review Comments to the Author

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

Reviewer #1: Abstract: Well-structured and provides a clear overview of the objectives, methodology, major findings, and significance of the study. It effectively summarizes the core aspects of the research and reflects the essence of the manuscript.

Introduction: clearly establishes the importance and relevance of the topic. The background information is well articulated and supported by appropriate and relevant literature. The cited studies help in establishing the research gap and justify the need for the present investigation.

Materials and methods: This section is now systematically organized and clearly presented. The headings and subheadings effectively describe the procedures and methodological approaches adopted for data collection and analysis. The section is sufficiently detailed to allow readers to understand the research design and the processes followed in conducting the study.

Results: The results section reflects the considerable effort made by the researcher to present the findings comprehensively. The major recommendations provided in the earlier review appear to have been incorporated. The findings are well organized and presented in a technically sound manner.

Discussion: The researcher has made a commendable effort to interpret the results and explain the underlying reasons for the observed findings. The discussion appropriately relates the results to the perceptions of respondents regarding agricultural work and the use and application of hand tools in their daily work practices.

Conclusion: Concise and clearly highlights the major findings derived from the study.

Overall, the researcher has made significant efforts to improve the manuscript. The revisions have strengthened the quality and clarity of the paper. In its present form, the manuscript represents a meaningful contribution to the field and will be useful for future researchers working in this domain.

Recommendation

Based on the improvements made and the overall quality of the manuscript, the paper is recommended for publication.

Reviewer #2: I am pleased to say that the authors have addressed the questions in my review and have substantially improved the manuscript. I am only making some detailed suggestions for editing that should be considered to remove errors and make the manuscript more readable. These should take very little time and I then endorse the manuscript for publication.

Detailed comments

35 would suggest inserting here “We found that hand tools used in…” to delineate this section of the abstract as results

44 what are MeSH terms? Maybe spell out or just write them?

49 It may not be germane to the research topic, but especially if you are setting the bar at 97% of farms, I don’t think these are exclusively subsistence systems. As you clarify below, some of their crops are for sale presumably if 66% is for home consumption? It’s not crucial for your study but I would find a different term, perhaps diversified smallholder farming (because income streams are increasingly diverse, not just farming, mining etc.). It doesn’t undermine any of your design or findings, not a dealbreaker so to speak, but is just a chance not to perpetuate myths about Andean farmers.

52 allocate, the previous sentences are in present tense as is appropriate and here past tense is appearing. Please check tenses throughout; intro generally present, methods, results narrated as past; and discussion probably a mix of present and past…I think I found most of the instances of mis-tensed verbs but a check would be good.

69 tools

72 period at end of sentence

74,75, etc. temporary, I would say annual. Temporary does not have that implication in English; annual vs. perennial crops is the usual distinction.

76 I think you are missing a word, national importance or prevalence (to not be redundant with importance below)?

78 I would say important context rather than particular

88 More of a transition is needed, e.g. “To address this need for co-creation, the “double diamond” design model… otherwise too sudden.

93 define not defines

97 I am not sure that the text after the colon is needed, … two questions: 1….2… is sufficiently clear. Was “a contextual question (needs…) “ extra text left after editing? Because it is quite confusing – reword or omit.

113 (same for line 123) Less awkward is simply “Guide 1 addressed research question one…” (past tense needed)

120 put (Q18-19; see supplemental file one) in parentheses at end rather than as a sentence, or “For more details, see supplemental file 1” . more readable.

129 Similar to above, parentheses can be combined as (Q6; supplemental file 1)

171 Jain et al. works – I would rewrite this slightly, probably “works by Jain et al. (e.g. Jain et al., 2018)” – if I see correctly in your discussion the other Jain reference, with at least one key reference for the reader.

188 slight rephrasing ...emerged during analysis (in this case, after the 11th interview).

190 is it not ‘anonymized data?’ de-anonymized would be with the names put back in, not what is wanted!

197 Would just shorten to “ ..is included in Supplemental file 3.”

218 I am not sure it is in the pdf but please check spaces in e.g. Fig. 2, Fig. 3 – should have a space between fig. and number.

257 perhaps better written with a comma, unless I am understanding the farmer wrong: “…is collective, is a communal workday” this reflects better the speech pattern, for me.

260 If they are regulated through titles I think the word in English would be ‘private’ rather than inherent; or “owned” ? Inherent does not have that meaning.

273 could remind the reader of the meaning of allachu here with allachu (hoe) and maybe even (hoe; Fig. 4)

288 I would write simply “…three of 13 participants” in the text (no “each”, or I am somehow not understanding what you mean by each); the table fractions are well understood.

326 I think tasta and chachas are woods? Maybe say (made from tasta or chachas wood) to complete the thought.

334 did the farmer use the singular? They did not say ‘allachus’ ? just checking.

353 (barriers and enablers) no capital B

368 Which diameter? That of the handle? And this was measured where the hand engages it? Below you use the term grip diameter which is very clear, probably say that?

Table 2 – is circumference of grip redundant with diameter of grip (handle), ie. Just multiplied by 3.14156…? if so probably only one is needed, to simplify the table, I would just cite the diameter.

387 you may want to shorten this title somewhat, it usually should not run to two lines in the journal, eg. After the colon: “..weight, size, design and other material characteristics” ?

Table 3 this is a nice addition, gives some very specific design considerations. I wonder whether it is necessary to give the /13 or /7 e.g. in the columns, probably just giving the absolute and percentage is enough, since you give the denominator in the heading. And, in the heading you could just say “ out of 13” e.g.

415 (side topic) I would be interested in knowing if, assuming tools are put away in a relatively dry place, whether it is rust or the physical wear in the soil/rocks (which is definitely apparent in older tools I have seen) that is most important (e.g. for you, line 458). A worked tool quickly regains its shine in the soil eg.

416 Are we switching to the second research question and interview guide now? Would be good to flag that! You say that in line 437, but does it actually begin here and deserves noting?

446 would delete however, redundant with while

447 associated if we are still in results (past tense, not general knowledge)

474 varied, included, -- keep the results in past tense as you are doing throughout moste of these paragraphs.

489 Was this something that became apparent in the fieldwork (Evaluation as the core of satisfaction?) or a general statement coming from your research framework? If the former, maybe “Evaluation emerged in the field interviews as core to … “

491 I don’t quite understand the phrase “though not all are fully accepted” – the assessments? The expectations? Implicit tool criteria? Please reword for clarity.

515 I think you mean “Were inherent”? but in any case the phrase “experiences were inherent to agricultural activity but also became more familiar” is unclear to me, as regards both literal meaning and significance? Can you rephrase? Maybe stressing that the familiarity of the tool is an important component as the quotes seem to suggest?

538 You place only weather impacts on the tool in the environment category; is it possible to place other site factors there that are presently in the ‘task’ category, e.g. terrain conditions like slope, rocky soils that may wear a tool more quickly; arguably the latter is as impactful or more so on the wear of a tool than a rainy climate and rotting handle?

559 “total tool length with the blade placed on the ground should be approximately….” Is the way to write this. Total is repeated and it is unclear.

579 conditions

548 I feel that there may be an unstated conclusion here that you may want to bring out more explicitly, that a) it should be considered that tools are too heavy in design work going forward because they create too much fatigue but b) there may be reasons for a heavy tool in heavy soils, drawn from your participatory design effort. I wonder if a concluding sentence to the paragraph could say something like this.

562 Have you considered the literature regarding how Andean highland conditions may have produced human evolution towards shortened extremities (for heat conservation, or also unfortunately as a response to stress in childhood e.g. https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0051795 )? It may be worth looking at, I don’t know if there has been a generational fading of this body shape pattern but it was definitely the case in my experience that Andean craft knitters had to deliberately lengthen the sleeves of sweaters for Northern tourists in past decades, if they used local arm models, sleeves were too short. This would make elbow height an unreliable guide and might produce tools that are too long and potentially more tiring; i.e. hard to swing; there may be an adaptedness of a shorter tool for shorter arms, in spite of bending tradeoffs. More generally considering whether the principles of tool measures from outside the region may be valid but the exact values might not be?

579 again soil type might be an additional factor accelerating wear of the tool tip?

605 I would say emerged not emerges (because in this sentence you are referring to the second question and therefore particular instance of results rather than generality)

613 Perhaps overstating the point, but I wonder if the conclusion here should be more nuanced in line with the other elements of the discussion such as in the next paragraph; they should perhaps ‘include technical criteria’ because the other principle you are demonstrating in the discussion is the local knowledge and adaptations of tool users? Rather than ‘adhering to’ which suggests that farmers may have a higher risk of getting it wrong. In my experience farmers who have enough experience to repair or modify tools often have a great deal of understanding of the particular problem they are trying to solve and are more often successful (and also line up well with technical criteria)

622 this is a nice point and balances well against the rest of the paragraph. It might be a chance to stress the importance of participatory design (e.g. double diamond?) that ignores neither local knowledge nor the potential improvements from innovation with design criteria? – and perhaps a good transition to the next paragraph which deepens this argument?

633 would insert a comma “..older, locally crafted implements, …”

655 I think you could insert a short phrase here defending the fact that you chose high frequency of use tools within a major and relatively universal Andean cropping activity (potato harvesting) --- eg. “ Although we examined tools that are ubiquitous in the Andes and a corresponding activity that is one of the more common Andean smallholder farm activities, the small sample may limit…”

Figures – some errors in spelling:

Fig. 1: check these: terrain conditions, means of transport not mean, discomfort and bodily pain,

Fig. 5: deficient tool not defficient; check that all bulleted entries on lists in boxes are capitalized on first word

**********

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

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

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

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

**********

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

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.

-->

Andean agriculture and hand tools: a qualitative approach of exploration of needs, barriers, and opportunities for innovation

PONE-D-25-54226R2

Dear Dr. Cruz-Ausejo Liliana,

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,

In-Ju Kim, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS One

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Thank you for submitting the revised version of your manuscript entitled "Andean agriculture and hand tools: a qualitative approach of exploration of needs, barriers, and opportunities for innovation" (PONE-D-25-54226R2) to PLOS ONE.

I have now received the reports from both reviewers. Reviewer 1 is fully satisfied with the revisions and recommends publication. Reviewer 2 confirms that the authors have adequately addressed all previous comments, with only minor editorial polishing needed. The authors’ detailed point-by-point response shows that every suggestion has been carefully implemented.

Both reviewers agree that the manuscript is now technically sound, that the data support the conclusions, that all underlying data are fully accessible (de-anonymised transcripts in the OSF repository), and that the writing is clear and in standard English. The study makes a meaningful contribution to the fields of participatory design, ergonomics, and occupational health in Andean smallholder agriculture.

I am pleased to accept your manuscript for publication in PLOS ONE pending any final minor production checks. We appreciate the thorough revisions you made in response to the reviewers’ constructive feedback.

Congratulations on the acceptance of your work.

Reviewers' comments: