Research on the speed thresholds of trucks in a sharp turn based on dynamic rollover risk levels

Tian Xin; Jinliang Xu; Chao Gao; Zhenhua Sun

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0256301

Peer Review History

Original SubmissionMay 6, 2021
29 Jun 2021 Decision Letter - Feng Chen, Editor PONE-D-21-14975 Research on the Speed Thresholds of Trucks in a Sharp Turn Based on Dynamic Rollover Risk Levels PLOS ONE Dear Dr. Xin, 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 Aug 13 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. 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, Feng Chen 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. Thank you for stating the following in the Financial Disclosure section: [This research was supported by Scientific Research Project of Zhejiang Provincial Department of Transportation to JX (Grant No. 2020025).The specific role of these author is articulated in the‘author contributions’ section. There was no additional external funding received for this study.]. We note that one or more of the authors are employed by a commercial company: Shaoxing Communications Investment Group Co.,Ltd. and China State Construction Silkroad Construction Investment Group Co.,Ltd. Please provide an amended Funding Statement declaring this commercial affiliation, as well as a statement regarding the Role of Funders in your study. If the funding organization did not play a role in the study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript and only provided financial support in the form of authors' salaries and/or research materials, please review your statements relating to the author contributions, and ensure you have specifically and accurately indicated the role(s) that these authors had in your study. You can update author roles in the Author Contributions section of the online submission form. Please also include the following statement within your amended Funding Statement. “The funder provided support in the form of salaries for authors [insert relevant initials], but did not have any additional role in the study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript. The specific roles of these authors are articulated in the ‘author contributions’ section.” If your commercial affiliation did play a role in your study, please state and explain this role within your updated Funding Statement. 2. Please also provide an updated Competing Interests Statement declaring this commercial affiliation along with any other relevant declarations relating to employment, consultancy, patents, products in development, or marketed products, etc. Within your Competing Interests Statement, please confirm that this commercial affiliation does not alter your adherence to all PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials by including the following statement: "This does not alter our adherence to PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials.” (as detailed online in our guide for authors http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/competing-interests) . If this adherence statement is not accurate and there are restrictions on sharing of data and/or materials, please state these. Please note that we cannot proceed with consideration of your article until this information has been declared. Please include both an updated Funding Statement and Competing Interests Statement in your cover letter. We will change the online submission form on your behalf. Please know it is PLOS ONE policy for corresponding authors to declare, on behalf of all authors, all potential competing interests for the purposes of transparency. PLOS defines a competing interest as anything that interferes with, or could reasonably be perceived as interfering with, the full and objective presentation, peer review, editorial decision-making, or publication of research or non-research articles submitted to one of the journals. Competing interests can be financial or non-financial, professional, or personal. Competing interests can arise in relationship to an organization or another person. Please follow this link to our website for more details on competing interests: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/competing-interests 3. 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 2 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 ******** 2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: No Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available? The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English? PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here. Reviewer #1: 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: Overall, the methodology sounds reasonable although the writing of the paper is quite confusing and in my opinion all of them have to be clarified in order to move forward in the publication process. • The comparison of simulation test results and theoretical results are performed for radius of curve equal to 5500m, super elevation rate equals to 0%, longitudinal gradient equals to 0%, coefficient of friction 0.70 and speed equals to 100 km. How about the assessment for higher values of super elevation rate i.e., more than 0% in conjunction with speed exceeding 100km/h. Authors should perform more experiments with different values and compare those results with theoretical. • In line 514, again the authors concluded that the results are reliable and accurate and the scope of application is wide. However, I am still concerned about the limitation of different parameters. Why did the authors consider only flexible pavements (with friction coefficient equals to 0.70) and not rigid pavement? • Change reference style and make it consistent. Reviewer #2: The topic of this paper is interesting and important. The methods sound. The results are meaningful and useful. There are some suggestions to improve this paper. 1. The reference style of this paper could be improved. For example, "Darren J. Torbic et al. [33]." could be "Torbic et al. [33]." 2. More references about truck rollover risk are needed. For example, the following one. [1] Reliability-based assessment of vehicle safety under adverse driving conditions, Transportation Research Part C: Emerging Technology, 18, 507-518. 3. "roll over" could be "rollover". ****** 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.0256301.r001
Revision 1
7 Jul 2021 Author Response Dear Editor Feng Chen and Reviewers, Thanks very much for taking your time to review this manuscript. I really appreciate all your comments and suggestions! Please find my itemized responses in below and my revisions/corrections in the re-submitted files. Thanks again! Response to the Suggestions from editor: 1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. Response: Thank you for the suggestion of file naming. We have made correction according the PLOS ONE style templates. Line4-8, the title of "Research on the Speed Thresholds of Trucks in a Sharp Turn Based on Dynamic Rollover Risk Levels" were corrected as "Research on the speed thresholds of trucks in a sharp turn based on dynamic rollover risk levels". 2. We note that one or more of the authors are employed by a commercial company: Shaoxing Communications Investment Group Co.,Ltd. and China State Construction Silkroad Construction Investment Group Co.,Ltd. Please provide an amended Funding Statement declaring this commercial affiliation, as well as a statement regarding the Role of Funders in your study. If the funding organization did not play a role in the study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript and only provided financial support in the form of authors' salaries and/or research materials, please review your statements relating to the author contributions, and ensure you have specifically and accurately indicated the role(s) that these authors had in your study. You can update author roles in the Author Contributions section of the online submission form. Response: Sorry for the trouble. Through verification, we found that Yafei Liu who is employed by China State Construction Silkroad Construction Investment Group Co., Ltd. played no role in the completion of the paper. After consultation with other authors, all authors agreed to remove Yafei Liu from the author list. Line 11,16-18, the author list was corrected. We are very apologized for the inconvenience caused by the changes to authorship due to negligence. I have updated author roles in the Author Contributions section of the online submission form. Funding Statement: This research was supported by Scientific Research Project of Zhejiang Provincial Department of Transportation (No. 2020025) to JX and ZS. This project was completed by the cooperation between Chang'an University and Shaoxing Communications Investment Group Co., Ltd. The funder provided support in the form of salaries for authors, but did not have any additional role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript. The specific role of these author is articulated in the ‘author contributions’ section. 3.Please also provide an updated Competing Interests Statement declaring this commercial affiliation along with any other relevant declarations relating to employment, consultancy, patents, products in development, or marketed products, etc. Response: Competing Interests Statement: There are no patents, products in development or marketed products association with this research to declare. This does not alter our adherence to PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials. An updated Funding Statement and Competing Interests Statement are included in the cover letter. 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 2 in your text; if accepted, production will need this reference to link the reader to the Table. Response: Line411-413, the statement of "The rollover thresholds of the truck under three different loading conditions are calculated according to the theoretical model, which are shown in Table 2. " was added. Line414,the statement of "the table" was corrected as "table 2". Response to the reviewer’s comments: Reviewer #1: 1. The comparison of simulation test results and theoretical results are performed for radius of curve equals to 5500m, superelevation rate equals to 0%, longitudinal gradient equals to 0%, coefficient of friction 0.70 and speed equals to 100 km. How about the assessment for higher values of super elevation rate i.e., more than 0% in conjunction with speed exceeding 100km/h. Authors should perform more experiments with different values and compare those results with theoretical. Response: According to the international standard, the minimum radius of the circular curve without setting superelevation under a design speed of 120km/h is 5500m, so we set a radius of 5500m and superelevation rate of 0%. In order to solve the reviewer’s doubt about whether simulation test results and theoretical results are consistent under the conditions of higher superelevation rate and higher speed, more experiments were supplemented. In the supplementary experiments, more superelevation and radius conditions based on design specification for highway alignment(JTG D20-2017) were added, which were superelevation rate equals to 2%( radius of curve equals to 3000m)、superelevation rate equals to 4% ( radius of curve equals to 2000m)、superelevation rate equals to 6%( radius of curve equals to 1000m), and longitudinal gradient is still 0%. Since the maximum speed of the selected typical truck is 105km/h, the speed in the supplementary experiments was set to 105km/h. The results of the supplementary experiments were shown in modified Table 3. The results of the supplementary experiments show simulation test results and theoretical results are still very consistent under the conditions of higher superelevation rate and higher speed. Correspondingly, Table 1 was also been modified, which added new scenes, and at this time, Line329-330, the statement of "Scenes 31-39 are used to test the rollover thresholds of the truck at a speed of 105km/h under different superelevation rates. "was added. 2. In line 514, again the authors concluded that the results are reliable and accurate and the scope of application is wide. However, I am still concerned about the limitation of different parameters. Why did the authors consider only flexible pavements (with friction coefficient equals to 0.70) and not rigid pavement? Response: The supplementary experiments were added for verification. The results of the supplementary experiments show simulation test results and theoretical results are still very consistent under the conditions of higher superelevation rate and higher speed. The establishment of the road model requires the completion of road alignment modeling and pavement modeling with TruckSim, and pavement modeling only needs to input the road friction coefficient, so the software modeling cannot distinguish the performance difference between flexible roads and rigid roads. We study the road conditions in good weather. For new roads, under dry conditions, the road friction coefficient of asphalt concrete pavement and cement concrete pavement is 0.7~0.85. Therefore, it is set to 0.7 in the paper. 3. Change reference style and make it consistent. Response: Thank you for your comments on the reference style. The style of all references was been carefully checked and revised. Reviewer #2: 1. The reference style of this paper could be improved. For example, "Darren J. Torbic et al. [33]." could be "Torbic et al. [33]." Response: Thank you for your comments on the reference style. The style of all references was been carefully checked and revised. Line 179, "Darren J. Torbic et al. [33]." was corrected as "Torbic et al. [33]." 2. More references about truck rollover risk are needed. For example, the following one. [1] Reliability-based assessment of vehicle safety under adverse driving conditions, Transportation Research Part C: Emerging Technology, 18, 507-518. Response: Line 545-546, the reference of "Reliability-based assessment of vehicle safety under adverse driving conditions, Transportation Research Part C: Emerging Technology, 18, 507-518. "was added. 3. "roll over" could be "rollover". Response: Line97,127,129,240,257,268,402,467,the statement of "roll over" was corrected as "rollover". The above is all the responses to the comments of the editor and reviewers. Thanks again to the editor and reviewers for your valuable suggestions and comments. We hope that the revised manuscript is accepted for publication in the Journal of PLOS ONE. Best regards! Sincerely, Tian Xin Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0256301.r002
20 Jul 2021 Decision Letter - Feng Chen, Editor PONE-D-21-14975R1 Research on the speed thresholds of trucks in a sharp turn based on dynamic rollover risk levels PLOS ONE Dear Dr. Xin, 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 Sep 03 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. 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, Feng Chen 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: 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 ****** 3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: 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: 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: 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 authors while responding have quoted " According to International Standards,,...", which they should avoid and explicitly mention the codes/standard. Its better to revise the text accordingly. ****** 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 [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.0256301.r003
Revision 2
2 Aug 2021 Author Response Dear Editor Feng Chen and Reviewers, Thanks very much for taking your time to review this manuscript. I really appreciate all your comments and suggestions! Please find my itemized responses in below and my revisions/corrections in the re-submitted files. Thanks again! Response to the Suggestions from editor: 1.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. Response: Thank you for the suggestion of reference format. According to the PLOS ONE requirements. The format of each reference has been corrected and completed in line 523-680 of " Revised Manuscript with Track Changes". There is no retracted paper cited in the reference. 2. 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. Response: We have uploaded the figure files to the PACE, and completed the figure files modification. Response to the reviewer’s comments: Reviewer #1: 1.The authors while responding have quoted " According to International Standards...", which they should avoid and explicitly mention the codes/standard. It’s better to revise the text accordingly. Response: Thank you for the suggestion. The expression of "According to International Standards..." is not specific and should be avoid, which is revised as " According to AASHOTO,2018 and MOT, 2017". where: AASHOTO,2018-American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets. 7th Ed. Washington, D.C. 2018. MOT, 2017- Ministry of transport of the People’s Republic of China (MOT). Design Specification for Highway Alignment, JTG D20-2017.1st ed. Beijing: China Communications Press; 2017. The above is all the responses to the comments of the editor and reviewers. Thanks again to the editor and reviewers for your valuable suggestions and comments. We hope that the revised manuscript is accepted for publication in the Journal of PLOS ONE. Best regards! Sincerely, Tian Xin Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0256301.r004
4 Aug 2021 Decision Letter - Feng Chen, Editor Research on the speed thresholds of trucks in a sharp turn based on dynamic rollover risk levels PONE-D-21-14975R2 Dear Dr. Xin, 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, Feng Chen Academic Editor PLOS ONE Additional Editor Comments (optional): Reviewers' comments: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0256301.r005
Formally Accepted
12 Aug 2021 Acceptance Letter - Feng Chen, Editor PONE-D-21-14975R2 Research on the speed thresholds of trucks in a sharp turn based on dynamic rollover risk levels Dear Dr. Xin: 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. Feng Chen Academic Editor PLOS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0256301.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 .