PWAT-D-24-00026

Relational representation: speaking with and not about Nature

PLOS Water

Dear Dr. Cano Pecharroman,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS Water. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS Water'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.

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

Thank you for submitting this paper to Plos Water and sorry for the extended period of review. After going through the manuscript and receiving two very informative reviews I recommend accepting it pending minor revisions. Both reviewer 1 and 2 suggest very specific improvements that should be very feasible for you. This includes: improving the description of case studies (reviewer 1), some further clarification in the methodology (reviewer 2) and some improvements in the discussions regarding language and use of concepts (reviewer 1) and the suggestion of making explicit power relations (reviewer 2). In any case I leave up to you to decide the ones you wish to undertake provided you justify properly the ones you are in disagreement with.

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

Please submit your revised manuscript by Jul 31 2024 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 water@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pwat/ 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 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'.

Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Hug March, Ph.D

Academic Editor

PLOS Water

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.

Additional Editor Comments (if provided):

Dear authors,

Thank you for submitting this paper to Plos Water and sorry for the extended period of review. After going through the manuscript and receiving two very informative reviews I recommend accepting it pending minor revisions. Both reviewer 1 and 2 suggest very specific improvements that should be very feasible for you. This includes: improving the description of case studies (reviewer 1), some further clarification in the methodology (reviewer 2) and some improvements in the discussions regarding language and use of concepts (reviewer 1) and the suggestion of making explicit power relations (reviewer 2). In any case I leave up to you to decide the ones you wish to undertake provided you justify properly the ones you are in disagreement with.

Looking forward to receiving the revised version of the paper.

Yours sincerely

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

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Does this manuscript meet PLOS Water’s publication criteria? Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions? The manuscript must describe methodologically and ethically rigorous research with conclusions that are appropriately drawn based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #1: N/A

Reviewer #2: N/A

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available (please refer to the Data Availability Statement at the start of the manuscript PDF file)?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception. 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

Reviewer #2: No

**********

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

PLOS Water 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: Overall, this is an excellent paper, well written and well researched. It presents a new point of view on the rights of nature, which combines a legal perspective with the debate about knowledge pluralism.

I have some suggestions, all minor, for the authors to consider.

- the description of the case studies is a bit long, and it is not so clear how it is connected to the speaking about/ for/ with typology. I suggest that the authors explain in the case descriptions, where one can see each typology in practice

- In the discussion, there is a slight change of language with respect to the preceding part of the paper. The authors introduce for the first time the concept of settler colonial state and frame the critique from this concept. I suggest to bring it up from the beginning

- I find missing a comment on the differences between case studies. It's not the same to gather representatives from local municipalities around the lagoon and indigenous peoples whose history and the history of the river are the same

- Very minor detail: There is a small inconsistency with the terminology: common good/ general good. I recommend using the same terms throughout

- Also minor: consider referring to the IPBES and the framework developed which refers to the idea of living from / with / as nature, and their discussion of knowledge pluralism. I think this is relevant because it gives the support of the international scientific community to initiatives related to the rights of nature.

- One last comment, which you are free to ignore. If you find it pertinent, it would be interesting to go a step further than acknowledging that all cases have "elements" of speaking with nature and comment on the differences between the case studies, perhaps even ranking them

Reviewer #2: The paper is very interesting, the argument is clear and exciting, the theoretical framework is appropriate and the discussion is highly relevant. I have some minor comments to improve the clarity of the paper :

- in the methodology :

> make clear what "purposive" and "convenience" means for non-specialist

> explain how many semi-structured interviews were conducted per case study per type of actor

- in the discussion : you could include some aspects of power relations between actors - all seems very depoliticized in your argument. Even if that was not your focus, you could acknowledge the presence of power relations around the management/caring of rivers that could interfere in the relational model of representation. You could quote political scientists researching water policy or ecosystem preservation policy in this domain and call for more research in this perspective.

**********

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.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

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.]

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.

Relational representation: speaking with and not about Nature

PWAT-D-24-00026R1

Dear Mrs Cano Pecharroman,

We are pleased to inform you that your manuscript 'Relational representation: speaking with and not about Nature' has been provisionally accepted for publication in PLOS Water.

Before your manuscript can be formally accepted you will need to complete some formatting changes, which you will receive in a follow-up email from a member of our team. 

Please note that your manuscript will not be scheduled for publication until you have made the required changes, so a swift response is appreciated.

IMPORTANT: The editorial review process is now complete. PLOS will only permit corrections to spelling, formatting or significant scientific errors from this point onwards. Requests for major changes, or any which affect the scientific understanding of your work, will cause delays to the publication date of your manuscript.

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 water@plos.org.

Thank you again for supporting Open Access publishing; we are looking forward to publishing your work in PLOS Water.

Best regards,

Guillaume Wright

Staff Editor

PLOS Water

***********************************************************

Reviewer Comments (if any, and for reference):

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 #2: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. Does this manuscript meet PLOS Water’s publication criteria? Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions? The manuscript must describe methodologically and ethically rigorous research with conclusions that are appropriately drawn based on the data presented.

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #2: N/A

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available (please refer to the Data Availability Statement at the start of the manuscript PDF file)?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception. 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?

PLOS Water 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 #2: 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 #2: The paper was adequately modified to meet the reviewers demand. It is not ready for publication. Thanks for letting me know when the paper is published.

**********

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.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #2: Yes: Joana Guerrin

**********