Peer Review History

Original SubmissionMay 30, 2021
Decision Letter - Thippa Reddy Gadekallu, Editor

PONE-D-21-17874

Multistage BiCross Encoder for Multilingual Access to COVID-19 Health Information

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. SINGH,

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.

Based on the comments received from the reviewers and my own observation, I recommend minor revisions for the article.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Jul 31 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,

Thippa Reddy Gadekallu

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.

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. 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

[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: Yes

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: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: Authors should add a list of contribtion before the organization paragraph in introduction.

General information that is well known should be reduced.

- All the key terms of the equations must be mentioned

- There must be column names in the tables with all borders.

- There are many typos and grammatical mistakes in the entire paper.

- The authors should further add explanation about research method.

- What are the computational resources reported in the state of the art for the same purpose?

- Major contribution was not clearly mentioned in the conclusion part.

- The discussion is very important in research paper. Nevertheless, this section is short and should be presented completely.

- Authors should add the most recent reference:

1) Classification of COVID-19 individuals using adaptive neuro-fuzzy inference system, Multimedia Systems, 1-15

2) Classification and Categorization of COVID-19 Outbreak in Pakistan, CMC

Reviewer #2: Introduction needs to explain the main contributions of the work more clearly.

The authors should emphasize the difference between other methods to clarify the position of this work further.

The authors should define all the notations and acronyms before using them.

In Abstract the authors can mention there achieved results.

The authors can refer the latest works on covid. Deep learning and medical image processing for coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic: A survey

Multistage BiCross Encode need more explanation.

**********

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.

Revision 1

Dear Editor PLOS One,

Thank you for giving us the opportunity to submit a revised draft of our manuscript entitled “Multistage BiCross encoder for multilingual access to COVID-19 health information” to PLOS One. We appreciate the time and effort that you and the reviewers have dedicated to give valuable feedback on our manuscript. We have been able to incorporate changes to reflect the suggestions provided by the reviewers. We have highlighted all the changes within the manuscript.

Here is a point-by-point response to the reviewers’ comments and concerns.

Comments from Reviewer 1:

- Authors should add a list of contribution before the organization paragraph in introduction.

We have added a list of contributions in the introduction section (Page 2)

- General information that is well known should be reduced.

We rewrote parts of the paper, removing all the unnecessary information

- All the key terms of the equations must be mentioned

We have revised all the equations, aiming to make them more comprehensible. All the changes can be seen in the highlighted part of the manuscript after the equations (Page 6-9).

- There must be column names in the tables with all borders.

We have added the borders to all the tables.

- There are many typos and grammatical mistakes in the entire paper.

We have revised the complete manuscript multiple times and have corrected all typos and grammatical mistakes.

- The authors should further add explanation about research method.

We have added more explanation and details, aiming to make the methodology more clear. We have also added some more details about our method in the introduction section. (Page 2)

- What are the computational resources reported in the state of the art for the same purpose?

You have raised an important point here. We have added details in the last paragraph of the “Results and Discussion” section and have also highlighted it (Page 15). However, in the case of our study, detailed comparison seems slightly out of scope because there are currently no reported computational resources by other state-of-the-art on the same MLIA dataset. Nevertheless, this is an interesting research direction and we hope to explore this more in our future work.

- Major contribution was not clearly mentioned in the conclusion part.

We have revised the conclusion section and have tried to incorporate all major contributions. (Page 15)

- The discussion is very important in a research paper. Nevertheless, this section is short and should be presented completely.

We have added more details to the discussion section. All the major changes are highlighted in the “Results and discussion” part. (Page 11-15)

- Authors should add the most recent reference:1) Classification of COVID-19 individuals using adaptive neuro-fuzzy inference system, Multimedia Systems, 1-15 2) Classification and Categorization of COVID-19 Outbreak in Pakistan, CMC

Thanks for letting me know about these references. We have cited it in our manuscript. (Page 5)

Comments from Reviewer 2:

- Introduction needs to explain the main contributions of the work more clearly.

We have added a list of contributions in the introduction section. We have also added some more details about our method in the introduction section. All changes have been highlighted (Page 2).

- The authors should emphasize the difference between other methods to clarify the position of this work further.

We have clarified the differences between our work and other methods in the “Related work” section. These have been highlighted (Page 4-5).

- The authors should define all the notations and acronyms before using them.

We revised our manuscript to incorporate the required changes (highlighted in the manuscript).

- In Abstract the authors can mention there achieved results.

We added this information to the abstract.

- The authors can refer the latest works on covid. Deep learning and medical image processing for coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic: A survey

We have cited it in our manuscript (Page 5). Thanks.

- Multistage BiCross Encode need more explanation.

The detailed description of our method has been given in section 4 of the paper (Page 5-9). We have also added some more details in various sections of the paper to make it more comprehensible (these have been highlighted).

In addition to the above comments, all spelling and grammatical errors have been corrected. We look forward to hearing from you in due time regarding our submission and to respond to any further questions and comments you may have.

Thank you and best regards.

Yours Sincerely,

Iknoor Singh

Department of Computer Science

The University of Sheffield, UK

E-mail: i.singh@sheffield.ac.uk

Attachments
Attachment
Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.pdf
Decision Letter - Balaraman Ravindran, Editor

Multistage BiCross encoder for multilingual access to COVID-19 health information

PONE-D-21-17874R1

Dear Dr. SINGH,

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,

Balaraman Ravindran, 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)

**********

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: 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

**********

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 have addressed almost all my suggestions. I would like to accept this paper.

**********

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

Formally Accepted
Acceptance Letter - Balaraman Ravindran, Editor

PONE-D-21-17874R1

Multistage BiCross encoder for multilingual access to COVID-19 health information

Dear Dr. Singh:

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. Balaraman Ravindran

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

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 .