Dear Dr. Zhu,

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.

==============================

ACADEMIC EDITOR: 

Based on the reviewers' feedback, please make careful revisions to the following points:

1. Issues regarding the timeliness of references, the structural organization of the paper, and the depth of analysis.
2. Lack of consideration for the commercialization issues in the design of tourist souvenirs.
3. Whether the sample size is sufficient to meet the research needs—currently, the study includes in-depth interviews with 7 souvenir designers and 2 cultural experts.

==============================

Please submit your revised manuscript by Sep 26 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,

Hai-Tao Yu, 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. 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.

3. Please include captions for your Supporting Information files at the end of your manuscript, and update any in-text citations to match accordingly. Please see our Supporting Information guidelines for more information: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/supporting-information.

4. Please remove all personal information, ensure that the data shared are in accordance with participant consent, and re-upload a fully anonymized data set.

Note: spreadsheet columns with personal information must be removed and not hidden as all hidden columns will appear in the published file.

Additional guidance on preparing raw data for publication can be found in our Data Policy (https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-human-research-participant-data-and-other-sensitive-data) and in the following article: http://www.bmj.com/content/340/bmj.c181.long .

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. 

[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: Partly

**********

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

Reviewer #1: N/A

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: No

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

Reviewer #1: This article necessitates significant amendments prior to publication; many of the citations are outdated, and considerable changes are required in the article's structure.

Based on these extensive and substantive comments, the article appears to require significant revisions to meet the standards for publication. The numerous issues—including outdated citations, structural organization, methodological clarity, and depth of analysis—suggest that it is currently not suitable for acceptance in its present form.

Therefore, the appropriate decision would be reject, with the recommendation that the authors thoroughly revise and resubmit after addressing all the outlined concerns.

Reviewer #2: The manuscript explores and discusses the creation and sustainability of economic value by adapting cultural values to tourist products. The manuscript, which includes a qualitative research approach, included interviews with designers and cultural experts. The manuscript, which aligns its purpose and methodology, identified the following points:

- The data obtained from the research was discussed primarily focused on commercialization. Ethical issues in tourist product development regarding the sustainability of cultural values were not sufficiently emphasized. The contradictions and conflicts between the views of designers and cultural experts were not sufficiently highlighted. The issue of the degradation of cultural values for the purpose of obtaining economic benefits from tourist products was not adequately discussed. Furthermore, recent research is insufficient in the references. Outdated research was used. It would be beneficial to discuss the mentioned issues by referencing recent studies. It is recommended to discuss the negative aspects of the commercialization of cultural values.

Good luck.

**********

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: Yes:  Abdallah Amro

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.]

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.

Attachments

Attachment

Submitted filename: Designing ethical.docx

Designing ethical souvenirs to sustain the cultural integrity of Dunhuang heritage

PONE-D-25-23388R1

Dear Dr. Zhu,

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,

Hai-Tao Yu, ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #3: All comments have been addressed

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

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

The PLOS Data policy

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

Reviewer #1: Your revision has substantially improved the manuscript. All major comments from the earlier review have been fully or partially addressed:

Introduction: Now emphasizes ethical design and cultural integrity, with a well-articulated research gap and updated references.

Literature Review: Thoroughly restructured with updated citations (2018–2025) and a clear conceptual chain linking cultural integrity, design principles, and ethics, culminating in a coherent framework.

Methodology: Expanded significantly, with clear justification for purposive sampling, transparent explanation of sample size and saturation, pilot study rationale, ethics approval details, and reflexivity strategies to manage bias. The addition of coding reliability (Cohen’s kappa) and a trustworthiness matrix strengthens methodological rigor.

Results: Correctly reorganized, with theme development upfront. A new theme (Design Implementation) was developed, and connections between all three themes (principles, ethics, implementation) are now explicit. Subsections are introduced with richer framing and literature support.

Discussion: Strongly tied to the framework, structured around its three components, and well-supported by recent literature. The section now extends findings into broader scholarly conversations.

Conclusion: Theoretical and practical contributions are clearly articulated. Practical recommendations are well-grounded in the categories and codes. Limitations and future research are outlined, which further strengthens the manuscript. The only area where improvement is still needed is the explicit articulation of methodological contributions—currently implied through reflexive thematic analysis and coder reliability checks, but not clearly labeled as a contribution in its own right.

Overall, the manuscript is now much clearer, better structured, and significantly more rigorous.

Reviewer #3: The manuscript is strong and has significant potential, but would benefit from moderate to major revisions focusing on clarity, conciseness, and alignment of findings with theoretical arguments.

Addressing the issues noted above will substantially improve the manuscript’s scholarly contribution and readability.

**********

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: Yes:  Abdallah Amro

Reviewer #3: Yes:  Wanamina Bostan Ali

**********