Cloud model-based evaluation of landslide dam development feasibility

Dengze Luo; Hongtao Li; Yu Wu; Dong Li; Xingguo Yang; Qiang Yao

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0251212

Peer Review History

Original SubmissionOctober 21, 2020
22 Feb 2021 Decision Letter - Yiming Tang, Editor PONE-D-20-33037 Cloud Model-based Evaluation of Landslide Dam Development Feasibility PLOS ONE Dear Dr. Yao, 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 note that the reviewer still has a few suggestions for revision, which need to be revised by the author. Please submit your revised manuscript by Apr 08 2021 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, Hanna Landenmark Associate Editor PLOS ONE on behalf of Yiming Tang, Ph.D. Academic Editor PLOS ONE Journal Requirements: 1. 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) 2. Please ensure that all data sources are referenced within the manuscript and the Data availability statement. 3. We note that Figure 4 in your submission contains satellite 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 (a) present written permission from the copyright holder to publish this figure specifically under the CC BY 4.0 license, or (b) remove the figure from your submission: a. You may seek permission from the original copyright holder of Figure 4 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].” b. If you are unable to obtain permission from the original copyright holder to publish this figure 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/ 4. 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): [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: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes Reviewer #3: Yes ******** 2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes Reviewer #3: 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 Reviewer #3: 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 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: This paper mainly focuses on a special phenomenon formed under the condition of landslide geological disasters—landslide dam, and studies on the feasibility of landslide dam development. By establishing a top-down index system and comprehensively considering the randomness and ambiguity of development feasibility, the authors propose a cloud model improvement evaluation method based on cloud model uncertainty reasoning. And the improved method has been used in the analysis and evaluation of Hongshiyan and Tangjiashan landslide dams. The final results show that it has certain guiding significance for actual project management. However, there are still some minor suggestions for this revised version. It could be published after minor revisions. The comments are as below. 1) In the abstract of the manuscript, the authors mentioned the principle of maximum membership to highlight the advantages of cloud model analysis. But throughout the full paper, the authors didn’t mention the basic theory, and analysis steps of maximum memberships, and there is no relevant literature cited. Therefore, it is suggested the authors can add something to this basic theory to make it clearer and easier for readers to understand. 2) In the introduction, the author mentioned “Xu et al. used a fuzzy mathematical method to evaluate the risk grade of the Hongshiyan landslide dam, and established six main indices for rating risk”. What are these six main indices for rating risk? 3) In the introduction, when the authors reviewed the literature, the research results of the cited scholars and the authors’ final summary do not have full correspondence. It is recommended that the authors may consider this issue. Discussions are needed. 4) In section 2.1, the authors mentioned the influencing factors of landslide dam development, and there are four aspects in total explained by the authors, including safety risk, resource feasibility, economic feasibility and ecological environmental impact. In order to highlight the importance of these four aspects, it is suggested the authors may consider using examples to explain these four points. 5) In section 3.1, the (a), (b), (c) of the Fig.1 are not in the same layout, which affects the look and understanding. The authors should correct this phenomenon. What’s more, the Tab.3 below the Fig.1 wasn’t cited. 6) In section 3.4, the authors mentioned “For the left and right boundaries, En was tripled to guarantee a membership of 0.5 at the comment division boundary, as shown in Tab. 8. See comment clouds in Fig. 2”. The Tab.8 should be changed to Tab.5, so that it corresponds to the table below. 7) There are many quoted figures missing in the paper, including Fig.2-Fig.8. That the authors should add them. 8)In section 5.2, the authors mentioned that the factors restricting the development of the Tangjiashan landslide dam are engineering safety risks and economic feasibility. Are there any countermeasures to reduce or avoid such risks? 9) It is suggested that the authors add contents to the conclusion, which are the measures for avoiding and reducing the unfavorable factors affecting the development of landslide dams. 10)The manuscript fully uses mathematical relationships to explain the weighting relationship of factors. Some qualitative and theoretical explanations can be added to make it more convincing. Reviewer #2: The manuscript entitled “Cloud Model-based Evaluation of Landslide Dam Development Feasibility” presents the developmental feasibility of landslide dams with case studies from China. The research work has highlighted the importance of landslide dams as a potential resource for hydro-energy and tourism resources and determining their development feasibility is a great initiative towards water sustainability. The authors have conducted thorough data analysis for the development of a cloud model-improved evaluation method to evaluate the development feasibility of Hongshiyan and Tangjiashan landslide dams. With the successful application of improved model in the study the authors have been able to introduce the long-term management plan for the landslide dams. The authors have elaborated the evaluation methods with all the relevant technical details in a comprehensive manner. I would highly recommend this paper for publication so that other researchers in this field can benefit from such studies and play their part towards real time case studies in different parts of the world. Reviewer #3: Dear Authors, I admire your work. The findings and results are very interesting. The ideas are very well organized. The statistical approaches are adequate to find the solutions. The manuscript is very well written and meets the aims of it. Thank you ****** 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. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0251212.r001
Revision 1
13 Mar 2021 Author Response Dear Editor and Reviewers, We gratefully thank you for your time spend making the constructive remarks and useful suggestions, which has significantly raised the quality and has enabled us to improve the manuscript. Each suggested revision and comment brought forward by the reviewers was accurately incorporated and considered. Below the comments of the reviewers are response point by point and the revisions are indicated. Reviewer #1: This paper mainly focuses on a special phenomenon formed under the condition of landslide geological disasters—landslide dam, and studies on the feasibility of landslide dam development. By establishing a top-down index system and comprehensively considering the randomness and ambiguity of development feasibility, the authors propose a cloud model improvement evaluation method based on cloud model uncertainty reasoning. And the improved method has been used in the analysis and evaluation of Hongshiyan and Tangjiashan landslide dams. The final results show that it has certain guiding significance for actual project management. However, there are still some minor suggestions for this revised version. It could be published after minor revisions. The comments are as below. 1) In the abstract of the manuscript, the authors mentioned the principle of maximum membership to highlight the advantages of cloud model analysis. But throughout the full paper, the authors didn’t mention the basic theory, and analysis steps of maximum memberships, and there is no relevant literature cited. Therefore, it is suggested the authors can add something to this basic theory to make it clearer and easier for readers to understand. Response: Thank you for your constructive and helpful suggestion. Following your suggestion, we have explained the theoretical of the maximum membership principle by adding the following text in the revised manuscript: Section 5.1, paragraph 1, line 414, “The level corresponding to the element with the largest membership degree in the fuzzy evaluation vector is taken as the evaluation result, which is the maximum membership principle [29].” 2) In the introduction, the author mentioned “Xu et al. used a fuzzy mathematical method to evaluate the risk grade of the Hongshiyan landslide dam, and established six main indices for rating risk”. What are these six main indices for rating risk? Response: We feel sorry for the inconvenience brought to the reviewer. The six main indices for rating risk now have been added into the manuscript as follows: Section 1, paragraph 2, line 67, “Xu et al. used a fuzzy mathematical method to evaluate the risk grade of the Hongshiyan landslide dam, and established six main indices (i.e., social development; dam material, volume parameters, water level growth rate, mountain stability and river channel river) for rating risk [1].” 3) In the introduction, when the authors reviewed the literature, the research results of the cited scholars and the authors’ final summary do not have full correspondence. It is recommended that the authors may consider this issue. Discussions are needed. Response: Thank you for your rigorous consideration. In the introduction, we cited scholars’ views “Studies have pointed out that the development of a landslide dam must ensure its safety and health, and consider environmental compatibility, social benefits, and economic benefits”，while in the conclusion, we evaluate the landslide dam development feasibility from four aspects, i.e., safety risk, resource feasibility, economic feasibility, and eco-environmental impact. Following the reviewer’s comment, the inconsistency of the indicators is discussed as follows: Section 5.2, paragraph 2, line 465, “On the contrary, if the landslide dam is retained for further development, a built-up landslide dam could not only create tourism, irrigation, electricity generation, and other economic benefits [8], but also increase the social benefits, promoting the local socio-economic development. Therefore, despite the relatively low economic feasibility of the Tangjiashan landslide dam, its potential national social benefits are still considerable. Considering the Tangjiashan landslide dam hasn’t been developed, it is hard to measure its social benefits currently, thus in this paper, we only choose economic benefits as evaluation indicator, a more comprehensive evaluation of the landslide dam development feasibility can be conducted combining with social benefits in the future” If there is any other inconsistency between the introduction and conclusion that we don’t notice, we sincerely hope you could point it out to us. 4) In section 2.1, the authors mentioned the influencing factors of landslide dam development, and there are four aspects in total explained by the authors, including safety risk, resource feasibility, economic feasibility and ecological environmental impact. In order to highlight the importance of these four aspects, it is suggested the authors may consider using examples to explain these four points. Response: Thank you for your valuable suggestion. An example of landslide dam development feasibility evaluation is added in the manuscript as follows: Section 2.1, paragraph 1, line 106, “The indices constituting a feasibility evaluation system must be able to reflect their overall characteristics and influencing factors, while being independent of each other and easy to obtain. Decisions about landslide dam development and utilization are influenced by multiple factors. Taking Hongshiyan landslide dam as an example, emergency measures are taken to reduce the breaching probability after its formation, and the potential hydropower energy, economic benefits and other conditions are taken into account to evaluate the potential for development based on the safety of the landslide dam [8]. So, referring ……” 5) In section 3.1, the (a), (b), (c) of the Fig.1 are not in the same layout, which affects the look and understanding. The authors should correct this phenomenon. What’s more, the Tab.3 below the Fig.1 wasn’t cited. Response: We appreciate for your valuable comment. The layout of these three figures is adjusted as follows: (a) Forward cloud generator (b) Backward cloud generator (c) Conditional cloud generator Fig. 1 Three kinds of Cloud generator The Tab. 3 was cited at the end section 3.1, which is shown as follows: Section 3.1, paragraph 2, line 223, “Tab. 3 shows the basic operations of cloud.” Section 3.5, paragraph 1, line 316, “(4) Synthesize the operation formula and determine the membership S through evaluation based on cloud operation rules (Tab 3);” 6) In section 3.4, the authors mentioned “For the left and right boundaries, En was tripled to guarantee a membership of 0.5 at the comment division boundary, as shown in Tab. 8. See comment clouds in Fig. 2”. The Tab.8 should be changed to Tab.5, so that it corresponds to the table below. Response: Thank for your careful review. The mistake is modified in this manuscript as follows. We feel sorry about our carelessness. Section 3.4, paragraph 1, line 298, “For the left and right boundaries, En was tripled to guarantee a membership of 0.5 at the comment division boundary, as shown in Tab. 5. See comment clouds in Fig. 2.” 7) There are many quoted figures missing in the paper, including Fig.2-Fig.8. That the authors should add them. Response: Thank you for your suggestion. As suggested by reviewer, we have added the suggested figures to the manuscript. 8) In section 5.2, the authors mentioned that the factors restricting the development of the Tangjiashan landslide dam are engineering safety risks and economic feasibility. Are there any countermeasures to reduce or avoid such risks? Response: We are grateful for your comment. The countermeasures to reduce such risks are added in the manuscript in the section 5.2, showing as follows: Section 5.2, paragraph 2, line 479, “Thus, if the strategy is to retain the Tangjiashan landslide dam, engineering measures should be taken to ensure its safety. The countermeasures should focus on reducing the risk of landsliding, piping and overtopping of the dam. Vibrating compaction can be used to improve dam stability, combining with the slope revetment in the upstream and rock pile pressure on the slope toe of the downstream on the basis of knowledge of the physical properties of dam materials. Grouting engineering measures can deal with potential piping issues. For example, an engineering sealant measure was applied to the Xiaonanhai landslide dam with excellent sealant effectiveness according to leakage observation in later periods [8]. Besides, widening and lining the existed spillway combining with setting crown wall on the dam top are useful to prevent overtopping. Factors affecting the development of the landslide dam can also be reduced by increasing the downstream flood protection capacity through the construction of facilities such as flood barriers.” 9) It is suggested that the authors add contents to the conclusion, which are the measures for avoiding and reducing the unfavorable factors affecting the development of landslide dams. Response: Thank for your suggestion. Following your advice, we have added the measures for avoiding and reducing the unfavorable factors affecting the development of landslide dams in the conclusion as follows: Section 6, paragraph 4, line 536, “The Hongshiyan landslide dam evaluation showed relatively high development feasibility, which now has been developed and putted into use. While the Tangjiashan landslide dam had low development feasibility, the factors restricting its development are engineering safety risks and economic feasibility, engineering measures like grouting, vibrating compaction and lining the existed spillway can be applied to reducing the safety risks, so as to turn disasters into benefits to mankind.” 10) The manuscript fully uses mathematical relationships to explain the weighting relationship of factors. Some qualitative and theoretical explanations can be added to make it more convincing. Response: We are extremely grateful to reviewer for pointing out this problem. We have added some qualitative explanations of the weighting result in the section 4.1.3, which is shown as follows: Section 4.1.3, paragraph 1, line 352, “From the aspect of the indicator layer, the safety risk has the greatest weight, which reflects the opinion of safety is the basis of the landslide dam development [20]. While the weight of eco-environmental impact is bigger than the economic feasibility and resource feasibility, indicating that the environmental protection plays a more critical role in the development of landslide dam. The close weighting of economic feasibility and resource feasibility indicates that they are of similar importance.” We sincerely hope that this revised manuscript has addressed all your comments and suggestions. We appreciated for the reviewers’ warm work earnestly, and hope that the correction will meet with approval. Once again, thank you very much for your comments and suggestions. Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0251212.r002
22 Apr 2021 Decision Letter - Yiming Tang, Editor Cloud Model-based Evaluation of Landslide Dam Development Feasibility PONE-D-20-33037R1 Dear Dr. Yao, 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, Yiming Tang, Ph.D. Academic Editor PLOS ONE Additional Editor Comments (optional): 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 #2: All comments have been addressed ******** 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: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available? The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified. 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: (No Response) Reviewer #2: (No Response) ****** 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 https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0251212.r003
Formally Accepted
28 Apr 2021 Acceptance Letter - Yiming Tang, Editor PONE-D-20-33037R1 Cloud Model-based Evaluation of Landslide Dam Development Feasibility Dear Dr. Yao: 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 Professor Yiming Tang Academic Editor PLOS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0251212.r004

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 .