Dear Dr. Palenova,

Please include continuous line numbers in your submission, as these are essential to ensure a smooth review by the reviewers.

Please also include figures within the text in Word format (you may include these figures at the end of the text).

This decision is not based on the scientific quality of the manuscript, but solely on technical limitations that prevent peer review. 

Please submit your revised manuscript by Jul 31 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,

Alberto Alaniz

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 note that PLOS ONE has specific guidelines on code sharing for submissions in which author-generated code underpins the findings in the manuscript. In these cases, we expect all author-generated code to be made available without restrictions upon publication of the work. Please review our guidelines at https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/materials-and-software-sharing#loc-sharing-code and ensure that your code is shared in a way that follows best practice and facilitates reproducibility and reuse.

4. Please provide additional details regarding participant consent. In the ethics statement in the Methods and online submission information, please ensure that you have specified 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.

Once you have amended this/these statement(s) in the Methods section of the manuscript, please add the same text to the “Ethics Statement” field of the submission form (via “Edit Submission”).

For additional information about PLOS ONE ethical requirements for human subjects research, please refer to http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-human-subjects-research.

5. Please update your submission to use the PLOS LaTeX template. The template and more information on our requirements for LaTeX submissions can be found at http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/latex.

6. We note that Figure 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and Appendix 5 in your submission contain [map/satellite] images which may be copyrighted. All PLOS content is published under the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY 4.0), which means that the manuscript, images, and Supporting Information files will be freely available online, and any third party is permitted to access, download, copy, distribute, and use these materials in any way, even commercially, with proper attribution. For these reasons, we cannot publish previously copyrighted maps or satellite images created using proprietary data, such as Google software (Google Maps, Street View, and Earth). For more information, see our copyright guidelines: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/licenses-and-copyright.

We require you to either (1) present written permission from the copyright holder to publish these figures specifically under the CC BY 4.0 license, or (2) remove the figures from your submission:

a. You may seek permission from the original copyright holder of Figure 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and Appendix 5to publish the content specifically under the CC BY 4.0 license.

We recommend that you contact the original copyright holder with the Content Permission Form (http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=7c09/content-permission-form.pdf) and the following text:

“I request permission for the open-access journal PLOS ONE to publish XXX under the Creative Commons Attribution License (CCAL) CC BY 4.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). Please be aware that this license allows unrestricted use and distribution, even commercially, by third parties. Please reply and provide explicit written permission to publish XXX under a CC BY license and complete the attached form.”

Please upload the completed Content Permission Form or other proof of granted permissions as an "Other" file with your submission.

In the figure caption of the copyrighted figure, please include the following text: “Reprinted from [ref] under a CC BY license, with permission from [name of publisher], original copyright [original copyright year].”

b. If you are unable to obtain permission from the original copyright holder to publish these figures under the CC BY 4.0 license or if the copyright holder’s requirements are incompatible with the CC BY 4.0 license, please either i) remove the figure or ii) supply a replacement figure that complies with the CC BY 4.0 license. Please check copyright information on all replacement figures and update the figure caption with source information. If applicable, please specify in the figure caption text when a figure is similar but not identical to the original image and is therefore for illustrative purposes only.

The following resources for replacing copyrighted map figures may be helpful:

USGS National Map Viewer (public domain): http://viewer.nationalmap.gov/viewer/

The Gateway to Astronaut Photography of Earth (public domain): http://eol.jsc.nasa.gov/sseop/clickmap/

Maps at the CIA (public domain): https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/index.html and https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/cia-maps-publications/index.html

NASA Earth Observatory (public domain): http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/

Landsat: http://landsat.visibleearth.nasa.gov/

USGS EROS (Earth Resources Observatory and Science (EROS) Center) (public domain): http://eros.usgs.gov/#

Natural Earth (public domain): http://www.naturalearthdata.com/

7. 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.

8. 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.

Additional Editor Comments 

Dear Elena Palenova

I hope you are well. I have reviewed the manuscript “Prioritization of areas for restoration after fires in Greece using spatial analysis with mixed methods,” which has several formatting issues that prevent it from being sent for peer review. Ths desicion is due solely to formatting restrictions, because the manuscript has not been yet peer reviewed (https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines).

Please include continuous line numbers in your submission, as these are essential to ensure a smooth review by the reviewers.

Please also include figures within the text in Word format (you may include these figures at the end of the text).

This decision is not based on the scientific quality of the manuscript, but solely on technical limitations that prevent peer review. Best regards

[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.

Dear Dr. Palenova,

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:

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

Please submit your revised manuscript by Jan 09 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.

• 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 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,

Kristofer Lasko, PhD

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Note from Editorial Office:

Having contacted Reviewer #2, we have confirmed that their use of AI was for translation purposes only, which is within the PLOS One policy on AI use. Hence, we require that you respond in full to the comments of Reviewer #2.

Journal Requirements:

1. 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. 

2. 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.

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

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

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: Partly

**********

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

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: This manuscript addresses a highly relevant and timely topic, namely the prioritization of areas for post-fire restoration in Greece using a mixed-methods approach that integrates stakeholder perspectives with GIS and remote sensing analysis. The study is well-structured, uses openly available datasets, and offers practical insights that could inform restoration planning and policy. Its novelty lies in combining expert interviews with geospatial analysis, which provides a socio-ecological dimension often missing from purely technical frameworks.

However, the manuscript would benefit from further strengthening in the Introduction, Methods, and Discussion to better situate the work in the existing literature and to clarify its methodological contributions.

The Introduction section needs to be enhanced. At present, it provides a good overview of wildfire impacts and post-fire management in Greece but lacks sufficient contextualization of the role of GIS and remote sensing in prioritization frameworks. I recommend adding a dedicated paragraph on the use of GIS-based approaches for restoration prioritization, referencing relevant international and Mediterranean studies. This will help position your mixed-methods approach in relation to existing geospatial methodologies and highlight the novelty of integrating stakeholder input.

Some suggested references you could include are:

• Dosis, Stefanos, George P. Petropoulos, and Kleomenis Kalogeropoulos. "A geospatial approach to identify and evaluate ecological restoration sites in post-fire landscapes." Land 12.12 (2023): 2183.

• Prodromou, M.; Gitas, I.; Mettas, C.; Tzouvaras, M.; Themistocleous, K.; Konstantinidis, A.; Pamboris, A.; Hadjimitsis, D. Remote-Sensing-Based Prioritization of Post-Fire Restoration Actions in Mediterranean Ecosystems: A Case Study in Cyprus. Remote Sens. 2025, 17, 1269. https://doi.org/10.3390/rs17071269

The current subtitle “Mixed methods” could be revised to a more professional and descriptive term. I recommend using a title such as “Methodological Framework”, “Study Design and Analytical Methods”, or “Methodological Approach”. This will better reflect the integration of qualitative (stakeholder interviews) and quantitative (GIS/RS analysis) components and improve the overall readability of the manuscript.

Discussion – Methodological Remarks

In lines 513–525, where you discuss the methodological remarks, I recommend strengthening the comparison with other studies that have addressed the selection of criteria for post-fire restoration prioritization. This would situate your work more firmly within the existing literature and highlight how your criteria (repetitive burns, slope, protected areas) align with or differ from approaches in previous research.

Additionally, as a suggestion for future work, it would be valuable to mention the potential for validation of your framework, for example by comparing the identified priority areas with outcomes of existing restoration actions in Greece or in other Mediterranean fire events. This would enhance the practical relevance and robustness of the proposed methodology.

Reviewer #2: The manuscript addresses an important topic and presents valuable data on prioritizing areas for post-fire restoration in Greece using a mixed-methods spatial approach. However, several aspects require substantive revision before the manuscript is suitable for publication.

Terminology consistency: The manuscript currently alternates between “wildfire,” “fire,” and “burns.” It would improve clarity and readability to use a consistent term throughout, e.g., “wildfire” for natural fires, and avoid switching to “burns.”

Abstract

I suggest not including the abbreviations GIS and RS in parentheses in the abstract. It is sufficient to use the full terms there and then introduce the abbreviations later in the main text, for example in the Materials and Methods section, as currently done.

Introduction

I noticed repeated citations of the same source – article no. 1 is cited in lines 41, 43, 58, and 61. It would be advisable to find additional sources for these statements, or to include more relevant references, especially considering the length and importance of these sections in the Introduction.

In lines 54–58, various damages caused by fires are mentioned, but it would be appropriate to also include damages to forests, since forests are frequently mentioned later in the text, as well as reforestation.

Use the term wildfire whenever referring to a forest fire. For example, in line 62 (both occurrences) and line 108. Of course, the terms fire severity and post-fire restoration are correctly used and do not require “wildfire.”

The sentence in lines 65–66 contains too many instances of “and.” I suggest rephrasing it, for example:

“The fires caused extensive damage to infrastructure, properties, and natural reserves, impacting biodiversity and local economies.”

In lines 68–69, it is stated that vegetation recovery generally occurs without intervention, with only a single citation (no. 11). I do not entirely agree with this, as replanting is frequently practiced (also mentioned in line 80 regarding reforestation in Greece). Either this statement should be supported by additional references, or the sentence should be reformulated.

From lines 88 to 99, I recommend standardizing the names of ministries and checking capitalization to ensure consistency.

In line 96, the term emergency stabilization should be clarified (stabilization of what?).

In line 100, “post-fire erosion risk” should be specified more clearly, e.g., soil erosion.

Material and methods

The manuscript uses the section title “Material and methods,” which is unusual. In last published PLOS ONE articles, the section is simply labelled “Methods,” although the journal’s submission guidelines recommend “Materials and Methods.” Consider adjusting the section title to align with typical journal usage.

Mixed methods section: The “Mixed methods” section reads more like part of the Introduction. In the Materials and Methods section, the focus should be on providing a detailed description of the procedures, data, analysis steps, selection of stakeholders, software used, and other methodological details. A graphical representation of the workflow would also be very helpful, as it would give the reader a clear overview of the process from stakeholder interviews to GIS analysis and the prioritization of areas. The paragraphs currently in lines 141–157 could be retained for context but should be moved to the Introduction, while the Materials and Methods should clearly outline the actual steps taken in the study.

Interviews section: I suggest reorganizing this section. First, it would be helpful to present the paragraph describing what was done in the study (currently lines 181–187), so that the reader clearly understands the procedures, topics, duration, and recording of the interviews. Only after that should the manuscript provide details on who was interviewed, including affiliations and the table currently in lines 161–178.

Rationale: If the reader first sees what was done (number of interviews, topics, duration, recording), they can better understand the context for the subsequent information on who was interviewed. This order allows readers to first grasp the methods and then see the additional details about the respondents, improving clarity and flow of the text.

Selecting recurrent criteria: This section clearly presents the criteria identified from the interviews, which is very helpful. I recommend adding a brief explanation of why only criteria mentioned by at least two respondents were included and how this threshold was determined.

Geospatial data: In this paragraph, it would improve clarity if the order of the data description matched the later table and detailed source section. For example, start with historical burned area data, then describe the DEM and slope data, and finally the protected areas. This ensures consistency and helps the reader follow the workflow from data selection to analysis. Additionally, it would be helpful to specify the time period covered by the historical burned area data, so that readers clearly understand the temporal scope of the dataset.

Abbreviation usage: Consider using the abbreviation GEE for Google Earth Engine in line 233 for consistency and brevity.

Results

Results clarity: The Results section clearly presents the outcomes of the analysis, but the description could be improved by consistently using terminology (e.g., “wildfire” instead of “fire” or “burned”) and by ensuring that figures and tables are referenced in a logical order matching the text.

It might improve readability if the presentation of results followed a consistent order: start with historical burned area data, then repetitive fires, slope analysis, and finally protected areas and overlay results. Additionally, providing percentages alongside absolute areas (as done in some cases) for all metrics would help readers quickly understand the relative scale of each criterion.

Discussion

Selected areas, Restoration measures, and Additional insights: Although these sections are labelled as Discussion, they mostly read as extended descriptions of results, case-specific examples, and practical recommendations, rather than analytical interpretation. They provide detailed accounts of selected areas, post-fire actions, community involvement, staffing, use of GIS, and funding challenges. In a typical Discussion, one would expect:

• comparison of findings with previous studies (e.g., “Our results are consistent with XY et al. (number)…”,

• interpretation of observed patterns and their ecological, social, or policy implications,

• acknowledgement of study limitations (currently addressed later in “Methodological remarks”), and

• broader implications for management, policy, or future research.

As currently written, the sections resemble Results or applied Recommendations. Reframing them to focus on analysis, interpretation, and synthesis would strengthen the manuscript and make it more aligned with standard scientific discussion structure.

Methodological remarks section: This is more like discussion, as it evaluates the approach, its strengths, limitations, and possibilities for extension. However, to constitute a discussion of manuscript, it would be important to compare the findings with previous studies, so that it is clear what is novel and what confirms or differs from existing knowledge.

I recommend adding statements such as:

• “Our findings are in line with XY et al. (number linked to references) who also highlighted the role of double-burned areas on steep slopes for restoration priorities.”

• “Unlike previous studies (AB et al., number linked to references), we integrated qualitative insights from stakeholders with geospatial analysis, providing a more nuanced perspective on post-fire management.”

• “The observed patterns of natural recovery correspond with findings reported by CD et al. (number linked to references) in Mediterranean ecosystems, emphasizing the importance of considering local socio-ecological constraints.”

This way, the section would not only evaluate the methodology and results but also situate the findings within the context of existing literature, which is exactly what a typical discussion should provide.

Conclusions:

The conclusion effectively summarizes the main findings of the study and emphasizes the practical applicability of the mixed-methods approach for prioritizing post-fire areas.

Overall, the manuscript has strong potential, but substantive revisions—especially in the Discussion and Introduction—are necessary to fully meet the standards of analytical interpretation and contextualization in the literature.

**********

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.

Prioritizing Areas for Post-Fire Restoration in Greece Using Mixed-Methods Spatial Analysis

PONE-D-25-26522R2

Dear Dr. Palenova,

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,

Kristofer Lasko, PhD

Academic Editor

PLOS One

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

The authors have revised the manuscript according to the minor revisions provided by the reviewers. However, the authors mentioned changing the title based on a suggestion from reviewer 1, but I do not see the title change. Please check and ensure the title is correct before publication.

Reviewers' comments: