-->PONE-D-25-39698-->-->Modeling the Role of Fertilizers and Improved Seeds on Rice Productivity in Tanzania using a Stochastic Simulation Approach-->-->PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Kadigi,

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.

==============================-->-->

The two reviewers both agree about the importance of the study, and its potential contribution to knowledge about the potential significance of improved rice production for local and national food security in a changing climate

However, they (and especially reviewer #1) feel that there are a number of technical inadequacies that undermine the quality of the paper, making it unsuitable for publication in its current state.

The study appears to have been pegged or relied almost entirely on analyses of rice production choice pathways (seed and fertilizer type) datasets using stochastic simulation (SS), reportedly anchored on the works of one Richardson. Although the analysis procedure is fairly well outlined, it was not very clear why the authors centered primarily on this one analytical technique and ignored all other standard strategies for assessing sociological data, which would have served to greatly complement the SS element and thus provide a more complete picture of the relative merits of fertilizer and seed choice by farmers.

The Introduction does not clearly articulate through literature review, what gap the research fills in knowledge on the subject, or how it advances existing knowledge based on past studies. This should entail reviewing literature up to date. The literature review should also include some introductory material on the technique adopted by the authors in their study – stochastic simulation. For instance, what are the relative merits of probabilistic/stochastic modeling for this study in comparison to other alternative analytical approaches? Furthermore, the introduction contains no literature review at all, on the relative merits of the choice or types of fertilizer and seeds, and how this relates to rural and national rice production goals/scenarios. There are tons of existing literature on that.

For such an elaborate attempt at statistical modeling, there must be at least 2 hypotheses to be tested. Not only were there no hypotheses stated or tested, there was no clear list of objectives underpinn9ng the investigation. The introduction must end with a clear list of objectives, and these should form the basis for the set of testable hypotheses for which the stochastic simulation will be run. Further down into Discussion, include in some greater detail how you findings align with the climate adaptation concept (which you mention) within the context of United Nations sustainable development goals relevant to the subject matter

In methods, this study primarily involved interviews with farmers, but this element is not mentioned anywhere in the paper. Instead, all focus seems to have been given to the aspect of simulation. Stochastic simulation may have been suitable for your purpose in integrating many elements of farm management, but why were other standard procedures for assessing sociological datasets (there are numerous ones) not included to complement or supplement simulation models?

There is no mention of how many households were sampled with the various regional Primary sampling units (PSU). Clear indication of this sample size and how it was incorporated in the models (what term in your stochastic simulation formula represents it?).

The terms you use such as ‘proportionately distributed’ and ‘systematically selected’ what do they mean in reference to sampling design and representativeness?

As a matter of fact, were all rice growers who also reared livestock included in the dataset, or some sort of sampling criteria used to pick a small sample in each place. Tis information and the ultimate sample size per PSu need to be provided

Also needed is information as to how up-to-date the census information was (for instance, a decades-old census dataset might be less useful currently). Include also the censusing authority, whether government or other agency, with citation of the census relevant actual census report

In many cases within Methods and analyses or results, the authors merely refer readers to various references especially Richardson. Methods must be described real-time for readers to be able to relate the study protocol to the study title, objectives, analyses and results reported, as well as are able to reproduce the procedure. They must not be asked to fish out the methods descriptions for themselves from another publication. In particular, each of the terms of the formula presented must be fully defined and described as well as justified for its value for the study’s objectives.

For instance, a term multivariate empirical distribution is abruptly mentioned as n approach for integrating various variables in simulation modeling. But no details are given, the readers being asked to find out from Richardson, 2000.  NO other mention is made of the term, and there is no indication as to how or where exactly it was indeed applied.

How datasets were pre-treated before simulation should be clearly described, especially as there were not only two variables (rice seed type and fertilizer type) but also spatial units (regions/agroecological zones); the element of crop vs. livestock production, including how these were standardized or re-scaled from the various components of measurement units. It is unlikely that any simulation model function would simply accommodate any number of data elements regardless of scale or unit.

Information presented in section 2.3 should best be presented in form of a table

At the end of the Discussion or at Conclusion, there must subsequently then be a statement outlining the extent to which the hypotheses were proved or disproved by the stochastic simulation exercise. At present, the Conclusion is too long and incudes some information that should better presented earlier on in Discussion

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

Please submit your revised manuscript by Jan 08 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 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,

Nickson Erick Otieno, 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. 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.

3. 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.

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

[This research was conducted as part of the USAID SERA BORA Project, contributing to the development of the Tanzania Seed Sector Development Strategy (TSSDS), which aims to enhance agricultural productivity and improve food security in Tanzania by 2030. We are grateful to ASPIRES Tanzania, supported by the USAID SERA BORA Project, for providing partial funding for this work. Thanks to Prof. David Nyange (ASPIRES) for the support that has benefited this work. Special thanks are due to the Simetar© team (www.simetar.com), particularly Dr. James W. Richardson, former Regents Professor at Texas A&M University, for his endless, invaluable guidance on the Monte Carlo Simulation Protocols.]

We note that you have provided funding information that is not currently declared in your Funding Statement. However, 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:

[The author(s) received no specific funding for this work.]

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

5. We note that Figure 1 in your submission contains 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 1 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/

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:

For references, the guidelines for formatting were totally ignored by the authors. Several citations are missing from the list and vice versa. Richardson and kadigi are two cases in point.

Most (if not all) guidelines for manuscript formatting have been completely ignored by the authors. In assessing the revised version of the resubmitted paper, STRICT ADHERENCE TO ALL FORMATTING rules  (according to guideline documents attached here) will be the first condition for the manuscript to be considered before any further review at all, without which it will be rejected outright

Be sure to address all the above, as well as the other individual comments by reviewers, point by point in a separate document accompanying the revised paper.

[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: No

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.-->

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

-->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: Introduction

Why the paper deserves to publish - or contribution to the knowledge not articulated properly. "This study addresses the gap by analyzing....." not good enough without giving evidence from literature - what is the gap - then contribution to knowledge from different aspect - theory, method, practical and so on- MISSING

SDGS 2- the study deal also adaption and climate - then need to include SDG6 and 13 with the alignment of Tanzanian national policy and strategies

Methodology

Figure 1 need to daw by authors with assistance of GIS expert using ARC GIS with proper scale and others - instead of coping and paste someone work

Before Probabilistic Simulation Approach (PSA)- the statical analysis's need such as multicollinearity, VIP and other standard procedures needed

consistency between et al (italics ) or not - page 6-7

You mentioned 2 strategies only applied in this study - but you applied Multivariate Empirical (MVE) distribution???????????????????????????????????????????????????? because muti variant is Mutiple variables

Result

the socioeconomic characteristics is very important for the adoption strategy - even if not tested - need to include - in the result with the alignment of the objective

It is not clear how .. impact on food security - how measure food security - not clear from the paper

All tables and figures need sources

How measure rice productivity -not clear

Reviewer #2: Introduction - Okay

Methodology- Is it correct- The six agroecological zone

- You may exclude No fertilizer and local seed as control

Result- Okay

Discussion - Okay

Recommendation-Okay

References - Okay

**********

-->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: Yes: Prof Yonas T. Bahta

Reviewer #2: Yes: Dr. Mohammad Abdullah Al Faroque

**********

[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.

Attachments

Attachment

Submitted filename: PLOS Title paage and Affiliations Formatting Guidelines.pdf

Attachment

Submitted filename: PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf

Modeling the role of fertilizers and improved seeds on rice productivity in Tanzania using a stochastic simulation approach

PONE-D-25-39698R1

Dear Prof Kadigi,

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,

Nickson Erick Otieno, PhD

Academic Editor

PLOS One

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

I must commend the authors most sincerely for the exceptionally excellent effort in revising the manuscript, which effort entailed meticulous point-by-point consideration and exhaustive response to all (without any exception) comments, issues and concerns raised by all the reviewers and Editor. All the responses are fully reflected in the revised and substantially improved manuscript, and all the rebuttals for points the authors felt did not warrant any changes, are very well justified and articulated.

In particular, the authors have sufficiently clarified, regarding my earlier concerns about the absence of parametrically-driven analysis and model structuring, that the study focused instead on a probabilistic approach to predicting/assessing (seed vs. fertilizer) decision pathways by farmers, and the implications of those choices for climate change and UN sustainable development goals (SDGs). They have ably and justifiably  argued that because of this analytical approach, and because, based on the nature of the datasets used in terms of skewness and variegated sample sizes and  attendant challenges in standardizing them for conventional hypothesis-driven parametric modeling, it was better to opt for stochastic simulation as a more elegant,  time-tested and defensible alternative. I am fully satisfied and convinced with this argument and its practical and technical merit.

The overall result is a highly revamped, much better structured and lucidly presented paper that should be much easier for readers to comprehend and reproduce if needed.

Based on all these facts therefore, I am satisfied that the article is acceptable for publication if the authors are willing to make the following few additional modifications

Introduction

Line 61: Please replace the word “using’ with the phrase “based on”

Line 67-68: Please consider replacing “…avoiding crop failure or achieving yields sufficient to ensure household food security and marketable surplus ” with “…yield gaps or harvest shortfalls that can potentially jeopardize food security or depress projected profit margins ”

Line 91: Your single research question should not be in italics but numbered e.g. (1). Alternatively, make it bold

Discussion

Make an even stronger highlight/emphasis in the Discussion, the implications of the findings for climate change trends in Tanzania (East Africa), and also for the UN SDGs, both of which are significant aspects of your introduction

Double-space all data in all Tables presented

Remove all figures from the manuscript body and submit them as separate TIFF, JPEG or SPS files with resolution no less than 350 dpi.  Leave only the figure captions in the relevant places in the manuscript. This should apply also to the Supporting-Information figure.

Reviewers' comments: