Dear Dr.  Groom,

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 Jan 02 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.. 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.. 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.. 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 . 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 . 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 . 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,

Daniel de Paiva Silva, 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. We note that Figure 3 and Figure S5 in your submission contain map 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:

1. You may seek permission from the original copyright holder of Figure 3 and Figure S5 to 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].”

2. 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/

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. 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.

5. 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:

Dear Dr. Groom,

After this first review round, both reviewers were very positive regarding your manuscript. Therefore, they indicated the need for minor reviews (or even the "Acceptance" status). Therefore, as soon as you insert the improvements suggested by one of the reviewers, and once the reviewer agrees the changes were satifatory, I am sure your manuscript will be accepted for publication in PLoS One. Congratulations on your hard work.

Sincerely,

Daniel Silva

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

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

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.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

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

Reviewer #1: Groom et al. present a timely and very well-written manuscript aimed at quantifying taxonomic output by European-based researchers and the level of demand for specific taxonomic knowledge. I found no real issues with the manuscript, and would be quite happy to see it proceed for publication.

One or two things which could be noted and/or briefly discussed are publication activity does not necessarily equal taxonomic capacity, particularly within a 10 year time frame. This ties to my second point which is the knowledge held within the amateur community. In my group (bees), but more broadly found in the insect world, many taxonomic authorities do not have institutional affiliations. If I consider the people working on the EPIC (European Pollinator Identification Courses) project (tied to the EU-PoMS monitoring scheme that you mention in the manuscript), perhaps 70% of the taxonomists have an institutional affiliation. This is actually higher than is representative for bees more broadly (there are some experts who were just not interested in participating). Whilst I fully understand your decision to make a transparent reproducible workflow based on accessible databases, acknowledging that this will not capture absolutely all the existing taxonomic knowledge base could be beneficial.

I would also highlight that there is a slight tension in the methodology and the goal of matching knowledge:demand in a European context. Your metric for selecting publications does not (from what I can see) distinguish between research on European taxa, and non-European taxa. A botanist working here at Naturalis publishing on West African plants will appear as "active" in your workflow, but does not actually provide appropriate knowledge to meet EU policy objectives focused on Europe. Now, distinguishing between European and non-European taxa in your workflow could be a big headache, and I understand why you did not do it. Many taxonomists working on non-European taxa also have good knowledge of their local fauna/flora. So, this issue may be academic, but I think that it is worth acknowledging.

With my best wishes,

Thomas Wood

Reviewer #2: 1. This is an important topic and the authors provide an interesting analysis. It would perhaps have been valuable to investigate drivers of the current situation; the existence of the taxonomic impediment to policy is not new – it has been discussed numerous times. Quantification, albeit at a high level, is helpful, although the recommendations at the end of the paper could be more extensive. Although the abstract states “We explore how this supply of expertise compares with the kinds of demands that arise from European biodiversity policy, including legally binding instruments such as the Birds and Habitats Directives and the Marine Strategy Framework Directive, as well as strategic initiatives focused on invasive alien species, crop wild relatives, and species of conservation concern”, this is not a strong element of the paper, which focusses more on availability of expertise rather than what those experts are producing and whether or not it is policy-relevant.

2. While the term ‘taxonomic impediment’ is stated in the paper to be “the challenge of cataloguing Earth’s biodiversity” this is a limited characterisation, missing the purpose of the original coining of the term. The term is better used to identify the impediment to implementing policy objectives due to the lack of appropriate taxonomic expertise and information. It has been used in this way by the CBD and, indeed, is the topic of the paper. A clear statement early in the paper would be helpful to set the stage.

3. When referring to Invasive Alien Species the authors might like to refer to a couple of relevant works that focussed on the relevant taxonomic needs: a) Lyal, C.H.C. & Miller, S.E., 2019, Capacity of United States federal government and its partners to rapidly and accurately report the identity (taxonomy) of non-native organisms intercepted in early detection programs. Biological Invasions https://doi.org/10.1007/s10530-019-02147-x 27pp. b) Smith, R.D., Aradottir, G.I., Taylor, A. & Lyal, C., 2008, Invasive species management – what taxonomic support is needed? Global Invasive Species Programme, Nairobi, Kenya. 52pp.

4. P. 9. When referring to the European Red list there seems to be no analysis of the ‘missing’ taxa, other than a statement that “classes like Clitellata, Echinodermata, and Platyhelminthes are apparently underrepresented”. This applies also to many of the insect groups, for example, and a comparison of the groups represented in the red list compared to, e.g. field guides, might be informative as to the relevance of accessible taxonomic information to the compilation of the Red Lists. A brief inspection, for examples, shows that the only Diptera included are in the Syrphidae – it seems implausible that no other Diptera are threatened. There are no Phthiraptera, although their host specificity suggests that for every endangered bird or mammal there are likely to be one or more endangered louse species. There are no Collembola – is this due to their conservation security or a lack of knowledge of the group as a whole? I suggest that the point on p. 12 “However, significant gaps in taxonomic expertise remain for fungi, algae, and non-insect invertebrates” should acknowledge gaps in other groups (including insects) where no work has been done at all.

5. P. 11. “Animal taxonomists have perhaps more diverse interests, but are mainly focused on vertebrates and insects.” This is doubtless correct, but the sizes of the various groups could be taken into account. Within the insects there are vastly more species than in the other groups considered, and I wonder if a more appropriate level here may be Order. The listing of families studied suggests an uneven degree of taxonomic attention, and it would be illustrative if the ‘bottom 10’, or a list of families with no publications, could also be listed.

6. P. 11. A causative relationship is inferred for the correlation between taxonomic research and biodiversity policy (“Specific biodiversity policies independently influencing taxonomic research…”). This may be so, but it has already been implied that the lack of taxonomic information can influence policy coverage and prioritisation, leading to a potentially circular argument. One can view policies as to an extent co-productions of policymakers and experts; if there is no available taxonomic expertise in a group is may not be recognised by policymakers at all, since it has no expert advocacy. Higher levels of taxonomic information and expertise enables inclusion of taxa covered in policies, and consequently delivers a correlation between policy coverage and research activity. The final sentence of section 3.3. “Despite these limitations, the overall model results provide strong evidence that biodiversity policy is related to taxonomic research effort, beyond what can be explained by species richness alone” in stressing correlation not causation is more appropriate. This is captured on P. 12 by “There is a catch-22 whereby rare species are not assessed because there is no one to study them, and there is no one to study them because there is no conservation policy driver until they are assessed.” Absolutely! The bryological example underlines this potential and sometimes actual circularity.

7. While the paper identifies a correlation between number of taxonomists and the attention demanded by policy (p.14), it could go further in considering a third factor, the charismatic nature of the group (the Red List containing more butterflies than moths, only hoverflies amongst the Diptera, a strong focus of research on vertebrates etc). This might drive both taxonomic attention and elements of policy focus, particularly in conservation priorities. In referring to taxonomic research, this could lead to the correlations reported. However, while there may be more research on such groups is the research policy focussed or simply policy adjacent.

8. The recommendations are very important, but could be expanded. I would note that the identified need for “better coordination among funders, institutions, and researchers” should also include policymakers and those responsible for policy implementation. Funding bodies are not always responsive to environmental policies, having in some cases very different drivers from policymakers. Without considering the aspects that influence what research is done (e.g. grant availability and grant success, citation index, impact factor of journals etc for scientific institutions and scientist career progression, requirements for cutting edge research for some science funders), coordination alone will not have a strong impact. It would also be helpful to understand more what policy needs, to provide a pointer to how discussions should be focussed.

**********

what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.). 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 For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy..-->

Reviewer #1: Yes: Thomas James WoodThomas James WoodThomas James WoodThomas James Wood

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.

Balancing the supply and demand for taxonomy: An analysis of European taxonomic capacity and policy needs.

PONE-D-25-45522R1

Dear Dr. Groom,

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  and clicking the ‘Update My Information' link at the top of the page. For questions related to billing, please contact  and clicking the ‘Update My Information' link at the top of the page. For questions related to billing, please contact  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,

Daniel de Paiva Silva, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS One

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

**********

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

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

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

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.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 #2: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

**********

what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.). 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 For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy..-->

Reviewer #2: Yes: Chris LyalChris LyalChris LyalChris Lyal

**********