Dear Dr. Kiwelu,

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 Nov 01 2025 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org . When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

• A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.
• A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.
• An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols . Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols .

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Charles Odilichukwu R. Okpala, PhD

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

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

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

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

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

2. When completing the data availability statement of the submission form, you indicated that you will make your data available on acceptance. We strongly recommend all authors decide on a data sharing plan before acceptance, as the process can be lengthy and hold up publication timelines. Please note that, though access restrictions are acceptable now, your entire data will need to be made freely accessible if your manuscript is accepted for publication. This policy applies to all data except where public deposition would breach compliance with the protocol approved by your research ethics board. If you are unable to adhere to our open data policy, please kindly revise your statement to explain your reasoning and we will seek the editor's input on an exemption. Please be assured that, once you have provided your new statement, the assessment of your exemption will not hold up the peer review process.

3. Your ethics statement should only appear in the Methods section of your manuscript. If your ethics statement is written in any section besides the Methods, please move it to the Methods section and delete it from any other section. Please ensure that your ethics statement is included in your manuscript, as the ethics statement entered into the online submission form will not be published alongside your manuscript.

4. Please include a copy of Table 6 which you refer to in your text on page 29.

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 :

Please, kindly address all comments raised in detail

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

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

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

Reviewer #1: Partly

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

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

The PLOS Data policy

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

Reviewer #1: Abstract Findings: The authors indicate the most used evidence-based practices were “asking, acquiring, appraising, and applying,” and that “aggression and assessment” were less practiced. These are words without any context and require the reader to know what the authors are talking about. There needs to be more stated about what the authors mean by these words.

Page 6, Discussion about Postharvest Handling: The authors indicate there are problems with postharvest handling in Uganda, such as mold, termites, and aflatoxin contamination that undermines maize quality. However, the authors say nothing about how maize is handled postharvest in Uganda. What are the typical harvest practices used by maize farmers in Uganda? How do farmers transport their maize crops to market? What types of storage facilities are available for storing maize? What types of markets accept the maize crop, and where are they located. Do maize farmers have to transport their crops for long distances? The problem statement is too general. More specifics need to be added to properly address the postharvest handling problems the authors refer to in their paper.

Page 12, Artificial Intelligence Discussion: The first sentence discussing AI needs to be rewritten for better clarity.

Figure 1: This figure is very hard to read in its present form. The words in the boxes are blurry.

Page 16, Hypothesis Test Section: This section is repetitive (same words for each EBIP) and can be summarized by stating the authors were testing that no significant relationship existed for each of the 6As. Also, this would be the place for the authors to state the type of method used to for hypothesis testing in their study.

Page 17, Reference to Using a Questionnaire: The authors indicated they used a questionnaire to gather quantitative data. The authors give no specifics about the types of questions asked in the questionnaire, or if the questionnaire was administered to both agricultural extension officers and rural maize smallholder farmers or just to maize farmers. It would be good for the authors to supply the questionnaire instrument in an appendix to the manuscript or at least state what types of questions were asked somewhere in the manuscript.

Page 19, ATLAS.ti 24: The authors indicated they used ATLAS.ti 24. What is ATLAS.ti 24?

Page 21, FGD: This acronym needs to be spelled out, as the reader does not know what “FSD” is.

Page 22, Table 2 and Page 26, Table 3: What is “SACCO”? This acronym needs to be spelled out in a footnote to Tables 2 and 3.

Page 10, the “6As” and Page 27, Table 4: As with the abstract, these evidence-based information practices are very general with no context. In Table 4, how were these EBIPs quantified? What do the numbers in the “Number” column of Table 4 mean? Do the numbers represent maize farmers who responded that rural extension officers actually performed each listed EBIP? If so, what types of questions were asked of maize farmers to acquire this information for each EBIP?

Figure 4: This figure is very blurry.

Table 5, Page 28: Again, how were the numbers in the “Number” column quantified? Also, the numbers reported in Table 5 are virtually the same as those reported in Table 4. Is there a need for two tables? Why not combine these tables?

Reviewer #2: I appreciate the efforts of the researchers, the paper contains adequate points to address the problem. however, the introduction is extended and must be minimized. the paper is well written and touches the important concern of the research under investigation.

**********

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:  Shishay Kahsay Weldearegay

**********

[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.

Enhancing food security sustainability through digital information extension services in rural Uganda: maize postharvest evidence-based strategies

PONE-D-25-39333R1

Dear Dr. Kiwelu,

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,

Charles Odilichukwu R. Okpala, PhD

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Acceptable for publication

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

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

The PLOS Data policy

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

Reviewer #1: I am satisfied with all the revisions made by the Authors. I have no further reservations or questions

Reviewer #2: I went through the paper, the author made significant improvement to the research article. my concerns are well addressed and aligns with the PLOS One data policy.

**********

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:  Shishay Kahsay Weldearegay

**********