Fabrication and evaluation of complicated microstructures on cylindrical surface

Jiahao Yong; Junfeng Liu; Chaoliang Guan; Yifan Dai; Fei Li; Zhanbin Fan

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0242918

Peer Review History

Original SubmissionAugust 6, 2020
9 Oct 2020 Decision Letter - Marco Livesu, Editor PONE-D-20-24573 Fabrication and evaluation of complicated microstructures on cylindrical surface PLOS 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. As detailed in the attached comments, reviewers both agree that the manuscript is worth publishing, but it should undergo a major revision beforehand. In particular, the global organization of the paper and the clarity of both the text and illustrations must be improved. Also clarifications on equations must be provided (see comments from Reviewer #1). Please submit your revised manuscript by Nov 23 2020 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: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript. Kind regards, Marco Livesu 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 suggest you thoroughly copyedit your manuscript for language usage, spelling, and grammar. If you do not know anyone who can help you do this, you may wish to consider employing a professional scientific editing service. Whilst you may use any professional scientific editing service of your choice, PLOS has partnered with both American Journal Experts (AJE) and Editage to provide discounted services to PLOS authors. Both organizations have experience helping authors meet PLOS guidelines and can provide language editing, translation, manuscript formatting, and figure formatting to ensure your manuscript meets our submission guidelines. To take advantage of our partnership with AJE, visit the AJE website (http://learn.aje.com/plos/) for a 15% discount off AJE services. To take advantage of our partnership with Editage, visit the Editage website (www.editage.com) and enter referral code PLOSEDIT for a 15% discount off Editage services. If the PLOS editorial team finds any language issues in text that either AJE or Editage has edited, the service provider will re-edit the text for free. Upon resubmission, please provide the following: The name of the colleague or the details of the professional service that edited your manuscript A copy of your manuscript showing your changes by either highlighting them or using track changes (uploaded as a supporting information file) A clean copy of the edited manuscript (uploaded as the new manuscript file) 3. 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 4. 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 1 in your text; if accepted, production will need this reference to link the reader to the Table. <h1> </h1> [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: Partly ******** 2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: N/A Reviewer #2: 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: No 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: No 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: 1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions? In general, the various technical parts that make up the method seem sound (compensation of tools radius, optimization of the hinge parameters). Most of the methods used to solve them are standard practice (e.g. bilinear interpolation). However, certain aspects are not clear: - Could you clarify if the derivation of $\\sigma$ is analogous the $S$ (Equations 2 and 3), such that both quantities are comparable? - Function $f$ in Equation 2 is the same as function $f$ in Equation 1? Shouldn't it be the inverse function since one reads $f(S) and the other $S=f(x1,x2,...xn)$? - Equation 3: how are the second and first order differentials calculated? - Line 122: another different function named $f$, I recommend to change the nomenclature. Could you also precise what $z$ and $\\theta$ are in this function? - Line 127: could you define beforehand what is "section curve" and "tool center path"? - Equation 7: another function named $f$ which I assume is different from the previous? The precision of the method is backed up with comparisons between the ground truth and the result considering some error metrics (section "Precision evaluation of microstructure arrays"). The results seem to indicate that the procedure decreases the error of the fabrication process. 2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? N/A. 3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available? I was unable to find the data related to the different plots. Also, It would be appreciated if the authors made the code of the "compensation algorithm" available as well. 4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English? The descriptive and technical content of the manuscript is often difficult to follow, mostly due to unusual phrasing and grammar. Authors should seek help in correcting and polishing the text, otherwise, it becomes sometimes an uphill task to read it. Besides, it would be appreciated it the main goal of the manuscript is described in more detail in the introduction section, along with the corresponding challenges. Reviewer #2: This paper presents a pipeline to optimize the machinability of the FTS system used to fabricate microstructures on roll molds. The authors first optimize the reliability of the fabrication system by selecting a proper design parameter of a flexible hinge holder. A tool radius compensation method is used to enhance the fabrication precision, where the least-square solution is used to approximate the cut depth. To verify the fabrication result, an evaluation method is generated to reduce the evaluation error. I believe the contribution of this work is solid as the precision of the final fabricated microstructure is greatly enhanced and seems aspheric surface is successfully fabricated. Although it needs to be mention that the tool radius compensation method used in the paper is not novel in the precision fabrication field. The manuscript is also not well-organized, and I have the sense that each part is weekly connected and not properly justified. My main concern is that most figures are not well prepared that cannot give enough information to support their conclusions. Detailed comments are as follows. * Line 80, please add the description of where the hinge holder is used in the FTS system (better to add a figure to illustrate the fabrication process). And please make it clear how the FEM simulation is applied to the component and describe how the boundary condition and workload are set. * The resolution of Fig 4 is very low, and the data is the loss of the unit. * Line 137, why the aspheric is hard to be obtained by Eq.6? Since designed aspheric surfaces can always have an implicit function to explain the surface and used in parameterization function. * The section “precision evaluation of microstructure arrays” is hard to follow. Please first add the explanation where the evaluation error comes from. * The captain of Fig 6 cannot match with the figure itself. * Fig 8, the target aspheric structure should be added as a ground-truth for reference. * Fig.12 basically gives no useful information as the ground-truth of the surface is not shown. Please also add a reference distance scale in the figure. In summary, I do think this paper requires heavily modify before it is ready for publication. The author should make the paper well organized and make all the figures easy to understand and technical details clear to make their claim self-contained. ******** 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 [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. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0242918.r001
Revision 1
16 Oct 2020 Author Response 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 suggest you thoroughly copyedit your manuscript for language usage, spelling, and grammar. If you do not know anyone who can help you do this, you may wish to consider employing a professional scientific editing service. Upon resubmission, please provide the following: • The name of the colleague or the details of the professional service that edited your manuscript • A copy of your manuscript showing your changes by either highlighting them or using track changes (uploaded as a supporting information file) • A clean copy of the edited manuscript (uploaded as the new manuscript file) Response: We regret there were problems with the English. The paper has been carefully revised by a professional language editing service from LetPub to improve the grammar and readability. LetPub is an author service brand owned and operated by Accdon LLC. Headquartered in the Boston area, It is a full-spectrum author services company with a large team of US-based certified language and scientific editors, ISO 17001 accredited translators, and professional scientific illustrators and animators. 3. 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 Response:The ORCID iD of the corresponding author is 0000-0002-7089-2388. I have updated my information in Editorial Manager. 4. 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 1 in your text; if accepted, production will need this reference to link the reader to the Table. Response: Table 1 referred in this paper was written as Figure 1, which has been corrected. [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: Partly ________________________________________ 2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: N/A Reviewer #2: 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: No 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: No 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: 1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions? In general, the various technical parts that make up the method seem sound (compensation of tools radius, optimization of the hinge parameters). Most of the methods used to solve them are standard practice (e.g. bilinear interpolation). However, certain aspects are not clear: - Could you clarify if the derivation of $\\sigma$ is analogous the $S$ (Equations 2 and 3), such that both quantities are comparable? Response: Response: Stress S andσ strength are functions of many random variables, such as material properties, size parameters and environmental variables. The degree function is very difficult to obtain directly. It is necessary to synthesize the distribution of relevant parameters into the distribution of stress and strength Including algebraic method, moment method and Monte Carlo method - Function $f$ in Equation 2 is the same as function $f$ in Equation 1? Shouldn't it be the inverse function since one reads $f(S) and the other $S=f(x1,x2,...xn)$? Response: They are not a function, the probability density function of stress in equation (1) and the variable function of stress based on moment method in equation (2). - Equation 3: how are the second and first order differentials calculated? Response: It can be obtained by algebraic method or moment method. - Line 122: another different function named $f$, I recommend to change the nomenclature. Could you also precise what $z$ and $\\theta$ are in this function? Response: The terminology and supplementary instructions have been changed as required by the reviewer. - Line 127: could you define beforehand what is "section curve" and "tool center path"? Response: Pre description has been made in accordance with reviewer opinion. - Equation 7: another function named $f$ which I assume is different from the previous? Response:They are different, and we changed the function symbol. The precision of the method is backed up with comparisons between the ground truth and the result considering some error metrics (section "Precision evaluation of microstructure arrays"). The results seem to indicate that the procedure decreases the error of the fabrication process. Response: In this chapter, the simulation results are compared, and then the evaluation method is applied to the later processing evaluation. 2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? N/A. 3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available? I was unable to find the data related to the different plots. Also, It would be appreciated if the authors made the code of the "compensation algorithm" available as well. Response: We will upload the compensation algorithm programming steps as supplementary materials. The filename is S1_Compensation Algorithm. 4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English? The descriptive and technical content of the manuscript is often difficult to follow, mostly due to unusual phrasing and grammar. Authors should seek help in correcting and polishing the text, otherwise, it becomes sometimes an uphill task to read it. Besides, it would be appreciated it the main goal of the manuscript is described in more detail in the introduction section, along with the corresponding challenges. Response:It has been revised according to the reviewer' opinions. We regret there were problems with the English. The paper has been carefully revised by a professional language editing service from LetPub to improve the grammar and readability. LetPub is an author service brand owned and operated by Accdon LLC. Headquartered in the Boston area, It is a full-spectrum author services company with a large team of US-based certified language and scientific editors, ISO 17001 accredited translators, and professional scientific illustrators and animators. Reviewer #2: This paper presents a pipeline to optimize the machinability of the FTS system used to fabricate microstructures on roll molds. The authors first optimize the reliability of the fabrication system by selecting a proper design parameter of a flexible hinge holder. A tool radius compensation method is used to enhance the fabrication precision, where the least-square solution is used to approximate the cut depth. To verify the fabrication result, an evaluation method is generated to reduce the evaluation error. I believe the contribution of this work is solid as the precision of the final fabricated microstructure is greatly enhanced and seems aspheric surface is successfully fabricated. Although it needs to be mention that the tool radius compensation method used in the paper is not novel in the precision fabrication field. The manuscript is also not well-organized, and I have the sense that each part is weekly connected and not properly justified. My main concern is that most figures are not well prepared that cannot give enough information to support their conclusions. Detailed comments are as follows. * Line 80, please add the description of where the hinge holder is used in the FTS system (better to add a figure to illustrate the fabrication process). And please make it clear how the FEM simulation is applied to the component and describe how the boundary condition and workload are set. Response: Relevant supplementary explanations have been made according to the advice. * The resolution of Fig 4 is very low, and the data is the loss of the unit. Response: Figure 4 is the cloud image saved by ANSYS software, which is already the highest resolution. * Line 137, why the aspheric is hard to be obtained by Eq.6? Since designed aspheric surfaces can always have an implicit function to explain the surface and used in parameterization function. Response: The expression in the text is not accurate, and the meaning of the expression has been revised according to the suggestion * The section “precision evaluation of microstructure arrays” is hard to follow. Please first add the explanation where the evaluation error comes from. Response: Relevant supplementary explanations have been made according to the advice. * The captain of Fig 6 cannot match with the figure itself. Response: The captain of Fig 6 is corrected according to the advice. * Fig 8, the target aspheric structure should be added as a ground-truth for reference. Response: Figure 8 shows the simulation diagram before and after the tool radius compensation. If you refer to figure 9, the first picture has been taken on the blue tape desktop to facilitate the observation of microstructure * Fig.12 basically gives no useful information as the ground-truth of the surface is not shown. Please also add a reference distance scale in the figure. Response: Figure 12 shows wear, which has been remarked. In summary, I do think this paper requires heavily modify before it is ready for publication. The author should make the paper well organized and make all the figures easy to understand and technical details clear to make their claim self-contained. ________________________________________ 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 Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0242918.r002
3 Nov 2020 Decision Letter - Marco Livesu, Editor PONE-D-20-24573R1 Fabrication and evaluation of complicated microstructures on cylindrical surface PLOS 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. Specifically, Figure 4 still lacks the unit of the data and the application points of the boundary conditions are not highlighted (see comments from Reviewer 2). Please submit your revised manuscript by Dec 18 2020 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: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript. Kind regards, Marco Livesu Academic Editor PLOS ONE [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: All comments have been addressed Reviewer #2: (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: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: N/A Reviewer #2: N/A ****** 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: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 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: Yes 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 #1: Thank you for attempting to answer my questions and make the corresponding changes. One minor comment, when referring to the "nearest-neighbor algorithm" (e.g. in line 153), be aware that this is different (compared to the bilinear interpolation method used in the paper, i.e. has a lower degree (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nearest-neighbor_interpolation). Reviewer #2: The authors have made substantial changes to the manuscript in this review round and addressed most of my comments. I appreciate the effort of adding the supplemental document to describe the detail of their program. There's one comment missed. Fig 4(a) still lacks the unit of the data and the author didn't show where they set the boundary condition. In which area the holder is contact with piezoelectric ceramics? It’s recommended to highlight the contact region with some symbol, add the unit of the data, and remove the file path at the bottom of this figure. Meanwhile, please rephrase the caption of Fig 4(b). ****** 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 #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. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0242918.r003
Revision 2
10 Nov 2020 Author Response Respond to the academic editor Marco Livesu: Thank you for your careful review. I have revised figure 4 according to reviewer 2's comments. Respond to the comments by Reviewer #1 Reviewer #1: Thank you for attempting to answer my questions and make the corresponding changes. One minor comment, when referring to the "nearest-neighbor algorithm" (e.g. in line 153), be aware that this is different (compared to the bilinear interpolation method used in the paper, i.e. has a lower degree (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nearest-neighbor_interpolation). Response： Thanks for your exhaustive advice. I'm sorry that I didn't make this part clear. As you said, the "nearest-neighbor algorithm" is different from to the bilinear interpolation method, And the former has a lower degree. The purpose of the nearest neighbor algorithm mentioned in this paper is to reflect the advantages of the bilinear interpolation method in calculation accuracy. We have reorganized this section in the paper. Respond to the comments by Reviewer #2 Reviewer #2: The authors have made substantial changes to the manuscript in this review round and addressed most of my comments. I appreciate the effort of adding the supplemental document to describe the detail of their program. There's one comment missed. Fig 4(a) still lacks the unit of the data and the author didn't show where they set the boundary condition. In which area the holder is contact with piezoelectric ceramics? It’s recommended to highlight the contact region with some symbol, add the unit of the data, and remove the file path at the bottom of this figure. Meanwhile, please rephrase the caption of Fig 4(b). Response： Thank you for your reminding. I'm sorry for the missing comment. The data unit of the Fig 4(a) has been added. We highlighted the location of boundary conditions with black triangle mark, the contact region with red diamond box, and the applied load with red arrow the in Fig 4(a). The file path at the bottom of this figure has also been removed. The unit of stress in Fig 4(a) is Pascal (Pa). The bottom surface of the hinge and the top and side of the bolt counterbore are fixed according to the actual working conditions. The load is applied on the contact surface, which is highlighted by a red rectangle, between the piezoelectric ceramic front face and the moving block of the hinge. The caption of Fig 4(b) has been renamed with first natural frequency. Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0242918.r004
12 Nov 2020 Decision Letter - Marco Livesu, Editor Fabrication and evaluation of complicated microstructures on cylindrical surface PONE-D-20-24573R2 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, Marco Livesu Academic Editor PLOS ONE Additional Editor Comments (optional): Reviewers' comments: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0242918.r005
Formally Accepted
1 Dec 2020 Acceptance Letter - Marco Livesu, Editor PONE-D-20-24573R2 Fabrication and evaluation of complicated microstructures on cylindrical surface Dear Dr. Liu: I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department. If your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. 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. If we can help with anything else, please email us at plosone@plos.org. Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access. Kind regards, PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff on behalf of Dr. Marco Livesu Academic Editor PLOS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0242918.r006

Open letter on the publication of peer review reports

PLOS recognizes the benefits of transparency in the peer review process. Therefore, we enable the publication of all of the content of peer review and author responses alongside final, published articles. Reviewers remain anonymous, unless they choose to reveal their names.

We encourage other journals to join us in this initiative. We hope that our action inspires the community, including researchers, research funders, and research institutions, to recognize the benefits of published peer review reports for all parts of the research system.

Learn more at ASAPbio .