PONE-D-23-00627Research on the Influence Factors of Sustainable Development of Plateau Characteristic Agriculture Based on DEMATEL and AISM Combined ModelPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Liu,

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 Apr 20 2023 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,

Mihajlo Jakovljevic, MD, PhD, MAE

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. Our internal editors have looked over your manuscript and determined that it is within the scope of our Sustainability and the Circular Economy Call for Papers. The Collection will encompass a diverse and interdisciplinary set of submissions related to sustainability and the circular economy, focusing on production models, business plans, and the contribution of global initiatives to increased sustainability in economic, environmental, and social terms. Additional information can be found on our announcement page: Sustainability and the Circular Economy - PLOS Collections . If you would like your manuscript to be considered for this collection, please let us know in your cover letter and we will ensure that your paper is treated as if you were responding to this call. If you would prefer to remove your manuscript from collection consideration, please specify this in the cover letter.

3. We note that the grant information you provided in the ‘Funding Information’ and ‘Financial Disclosure’ sections do not match. 

When you resubmit, please ensure that you provide the correct grant numbers for the awards you received for your study in the ‘Funding Information’ section.

4. In your Data Availability statement, you have not specified where the minimal data set underlying the results described in your manuscript can be found. PLOS defines a study's minimal data set as the underlying data used to reach the conclusions drawn in the manuscript and any additional data required to replicate the reported study findings in their entirety. All PLOS journals require that the minimal data set be made fully available. For more information about our data policy, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability.

"Upon re-submitting your revised manuscript, please upload your study’s minimal underlying data set as either Supporting Information files or to a stable, public repository and include the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers within your revised cover letter. For a list of acceptable repositories, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-recommended-repositories. Any potentially identifying patient information must be fully anonymized.

Important: If there are ethical or legal restrictions to sharing your data publicly, please explain these restrictions in detail. Please see our guidelines for more information on what we consider unacceptable restrictions to publicly sharing data: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-unacceptable-data-access-restrictions. Note that it is not acceptable for the authors to be the sole named individuals responsible for ensuring data access.

We will update your Data Availability statement to reflect the information you provide in your cover letter.

5. PLOS requires an ORCID iD for the corresponding author in Editorial Manager on papers submitted after December 6th, 2016. Please ensure that you have an ORCID iD and that it is validated in Editorial Manager. To do this, go to ‘Update my Information’ (in the upper left-hand corner of the main menu), and click on the Fetch/Validate link next to the ORCID field. This will take you to the ORCID site and allow you to create a new iD or authenticate a pre-existing iD in Editorial Manager. Please see the following video for instructions on linking an ORCID iD to your Editorial Manager account: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_xcclfuvtxQ

6. Please ensure that you refer to Figure 2 in your text as, if accepted, production will need this reference to link the reader to the figure.

7. We note you have included a table to which you do not refer in the text of your manuscript. Please ensure that you refer to Table 3,4 and 5 in your text; if accepted, production will need this reference to link the reader to the Table.

[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

Reviewer #3: Partly

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: No

**********

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: No

Reviewer #3: No

**********

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: No

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: 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: The reviewer believes that the topic “Research on the Influence Factors of Sustainable Development of Plateau Characteristic Agriculture Based on DEMATEL and AISM Combined Model” is worthy of investigation. This paper has the potential to be accepted, but some important points have to be clarified or fixed before we can proceed and positive action can be taken.

Your abstract should clearly state the essence of the problem you are addressing, what you did and what you found and recommend.

Please specify the source of the data.

The language of this manuscript is very bad and needs help from native speakers.

Please review appropriate literature in the Introduction, with the research question clearly arising from that review.

The introduction P3, LINE67-77. This section should explain the study's context and research objective. Furthermore, the research gap needs to be narrowed after analyzing the previous studies. The research method is not adequately explained in the first section.

P3, LINE78-86. This a very vague statement. These sentences do not provide any information on how the concept could be conceptualized? - The Introduction should have 1) a concise but complete justification of the topic's importance both academically and practically, and 2) an explanation of the gaps both in research and practice. Please review appropriate literature in the Introduction, with the research question clearly arising from that review.

-The manuscript does not answer the following concerns: Why is it timeliness to explore such a study? What makes this study different from the previously published studies? Are there any similarly findings in line with the previously published studies? Are the findings different from prior academic studies that were conducted elsewhere, if any? See the following: Developing a conceptual partner matching framework for digital green innovation of agricultural high-end equipment manufacturing system toward agriculture 5.0: A Novel Niche Field Model Combined With Fuzzy VIKOR. Frontiers in Psychology, 2022; 13: 924109. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.924109

There is no flow in the text. It partly depends on the lack of proofreading but also on the fact that many statements and claims are made without being followed up by a clear and logical discussion.

-More importantly, the choice of the variables should be explained in light of the theory and the prior literature on the topic.

See the following: Evolution of Agricultural Innovation Ecosystem in County Areas: A Life-Cycle Perspective of Cases in Hebei Province", Mathematical Problems in Engineering, vol. 2022, Article ID 5262248, 21 pages, 2022. https://doi.org/10.1155/2022/5262248

I suggest authors here clearly explain the model building process, and what previous studies have used similar models.

Methodology: Model.. I suggest authors here build your main heading on Research and data methodology. Clearly explain the model building process, and what previous studies have used similar models (model testing approach).

The authors should emphasize the important role of digital technology in green innovation in future research. Please consider this structure for manuscript final part.

-Discussion

-Conclusion

-Managerial Implication

-Practical/Social Implications

-Discussion needs to be a coherent and cohesive set of arguments that take us beyond this study in particular, and help us see the relevance of what authors have proposed. Authors should create an independent “Discussion” section. Author need to contextualize the findings in the literature, and need to be explicit about the added value of your study towards that literature. Also other studies should be cited to increase the theoretical background of each of the method used. Findings should be contextualized in the literature and should be explicit about the added value of the study towards the literature. Limitations and future research.

Please make sure your conclusions' section underscores the scientific value-added of your paper, and/or the applicability of your findings/results. Highlight the novelty of your study. In addition to summarizing the actions taken and results, please strengthen the explanation of their significance. It is recommended to use quantitative reasoning comparing with appropriate benchmarks, especially those stemming from previous work. See the following: An adoption-implementation framework of digital green knowledge to improve the performance of digital green innovation practices, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2022.132608

Reviewer #2: Recommendations:

- Can you clearly include the starting hypotheses and if these are fulfilled later?

- What lines of future research can be drawn?

- Why is it important to know the research on this topic?

- The discussion and the conclusion should be improved.

- Present clearly what possible implications or applications your findings have.

Reviewer #3: This paper established an analytical model using DEMATEL-AISM to clarify the main influencing factors on the sustainable development of plateau characteristic agriculture in Yunnan Province and conducted an empirical study. I think this paper is interesting. I thank the authors. However, the manuscript does not meet the publishing requirements at present, and the following key problems need to be solved.

Comment 1: The title of the figure should be centered.

Comment 2: Figure 1 shows the number 0 instead of the letter O mentioned in the text. It is also suggested to replace the expression “D” of the decision matrix to distinguish it from the degree of influence “D” or indicate what the current “D” is when expressing it later.

Comment 3: It is suggested to divide the steps of DEMATEL and AISM into two small frameworks in Figure 1 and divide them accordingly in the subsequent analysis, so that readers can understand the basic steps of the above two methods through reading this article.

Comment 4: Table 3 has problems with the direct impact matrix. The direct impact matrix should be a square matrix, that is, according to the number of factors studied in this text, it should be 18 × 18.

Comment 5: In order to increase the readability of the article, it is suggested to add the matrix to be calculated in the titles of 3.2.1 and 3.2.2, just like the title of 3.2.3.

Comment 6: It is suggested to explain the first parameter in the formula under the corresponding formula.

Comment 7: Figures 2, 3 and 4 are followed by no corresponding text description. If the author wants to make an analysis in Section 4, it is suggested to specify the figure in the order of Section 3 for explanation, so as to enhance the organization and logic of the article.

Comment 8: Decision matrix D, as a bridge between DEMATEL and AISM, is not reflected in Section 3.

Comment 9: There are some basic errors. For example, the title of 4.1 and 4.2 is incorrect (the word "analysis" is separated by spaces). The corresponding analysis of lines 204 and 221 should be the interpretation of Figure 5 (Figure 4 is written in the text). Line 223 refers to L7 level (the corresponding highest level in the text is L6).

Comment 10: Lines 247 and 256 are explained in Figure 4, but there is no difference of the explanations between centrality and causation. The author is suggested to further polish the full text.

Comment 11: Section 5 is not relevant to the previous analysis and is too long. It is recommended to merge Section 5 and Section 6 and reduce the length of Section 5.

**********

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: No

Reviewer #2: No

Reviewer #3: 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.

PONE-D-23-00627R1Research on the Influence Factors of Sustainable Development of Plateau Characteristic Agriculture Based on DEMATEL and AISM Combined ModelPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Liu,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

 Please submit your revised manuscript by Nov 18 2023 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,

Mihajlo Jakovljevic, MD, PhD, MAE

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

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

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

Reviewer #3: (No Response)

**********

2. 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: (No Response)

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

Reviewer #3: I Don't Know

**********

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.

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

Reviewer #3: No

**********

5. 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: (No Response)

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

6. 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: The introduction section was not sufficiently modified. I cannot identify the improvements according to my comments.

Reviewer #3: I would like to thank the authors for their efforts. However, some errors in the manuscript still need to be corrected by the author.

Comment 1: Please confirm whether the full name of AISM is "antagonistic interpretation structure model" or "Adversarial Interpretive Structure Modeling Method".

Comment 2: The full name of DEMATEL and AISM were not given when they first appeared in the text.

Comment 3: Adjust the font size of Table 3 appropriately to align the table content.

Comment 4: There is no corresponding change from "the degree of influence" D to E below title 3.2.4, and there is also a similar error below Fig 3.

Comment 5: The adjacency matrix A calculation expression under heading 3.2.7 should be placed under heading 3.2.8.

Please carefully review and correct any fundamental errors in the manuscript.

**********

7. 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: No

Reviewer #3: 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.

Research on the Influence Factors of Sustainable Development of Plateau Characteristic Agriculture Based on DEMATEL and AISM Combined Model

PONE-D-23-00627R2

Dear Dr. Liu,

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 for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

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,

Mihajlo Jakovljevic, MD, PhD, MAE

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Dear Authors,

Dear Plos One Editorial Office,

Based on the two rounds of meaningful but mutually not so consistent external peer reviews and my own Editorial insight into manuscript revision adopting most of provided recommendations, hereby I render a Decision:

Accept without further changes

Congratulations !

Mihajlo (Michael) Jakovljevic M.D. Ph.D. MAE

UNESCO - The World Academy of Sciences (TWAS) Academician

Editor-in-Chief, Cost-effectiveness and resource allocation (CERA), BMC

Full Professor, Founding Head of Department Global Health Economics & Policy

University of Kragujevac Faculty of Medical Sciences, SERBIA

Full Professor, Institute of Comparative Economic Studies

Hosei University Faculty of Economics, Tokyo, JAPAN

On Google Scholar: http://scholar.google.com/citations?user=4KELK8wAAAAJ&hl=en&oi=ao

https://resource-allocation.biomedcentral.com/

Reviewers' comments: