Medical image encryption algorithm based on a new five-dimensional three-leaf chaotic system and genetic operation

Zhongyue Liang; Qiuxia Qin; Changjun Zhou; Ning Wang; Yi Xu; Wenshu Zhou

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0260014

Peer Review History

Original SubmissionJuly 2, 2021
27 Aug 2021 Decision Letter - Hussain Md Abu Nyeem, Editor PONE-D-21-19375 Medical image encryption algorithm based on a new five-dimensional three-leaf chaotic system and genetic operation PLOS ONE Dear Dr. Xu, 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. The paper presents a new higher order chaotic system with DNA recombination. It is well written and reads interesting. The author should clearly represent, perhaps at the section heading, their contribution, which is the proposed/new higher order chaotic system with clearer justification of the choice of using DNA recombination. The paper should be carefully revised to avoid any grammatical errors and typos. The figures and tables in Sec. 4 are to be explained with more details and a summary of the analysis and comparisons is required to highlight the merit of the proposed system in support of the conclusions. The reviewers' concerns should also be adequately addressed. Please submit your revised manuscript by Oct 11 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, Hussain Md Abu Nyeem, Ph.D. 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 Acknowledgments Section of your manuscript: "This work was supported in part by the National Youth Science Foundation of China 490 under the Grant numbers 62002046, 61802040, and in part by the National Natural 491 Science Foundation of China (61672121)." We note that you have provided funding information that is not currently declared in your Funding Statement. However, funding information should not appear in the Acknowledgments section or other areas of your manuscript. We will only publish funding information present in the Funding Statement section of the online submission form. Please remove any funding-related text from the manuscript and let us know how you would like to update your Funding Statement. Currently, your Funding Statement reads as follows: "National Youth Science Foundation of China(No.62002046, No.61802040). National Natural Science Foundation of China (No.61672121)." Please include your amended statements within your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf. 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 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. 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 Reviewer #3: Yes ******** 2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: N/A 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 proposes a medical image encryption algorithm based on a new five-dimensional three-leaf chaotic system and genetic operation. Simulation experiments show that the algorithm has good encryption effect, high time efficiency, and can effectively resist various attacks. Some major revisions should be addressed for improving the quality of the paper. 1. There are some spelling and syntax errors, which need correction (e.g. “an medical image encryption algorithm” -> “a medical image encryption algorithm”). 2. After Eq. (1) and Eq. (2), “where” is necessary. 3. Fig. 2 is not a bifurcation diagram but several phase portraits. Besides, just two phase portraits will be enough. 4. In Line 170 and Eq. (10), “x(1), y(1), z(1), w(1), z(1)” -> “x(1), y(1), z(1), w(1), v(1)”. 5. Recently, the ISI-encoded chaotic sequences were applied to the application of image encryption in [Bao H, Hua ZY, Liu WB, et al. Discrete memristive neuron model and its interspike interval-encoded application in image encryption. Sci China Tech Sci, 2021, 64, 10.1007/s11431-021-1845-x]. Can these chaotic sequences be used for the work of this paper? Reviewer #2: In this paper，chaotic system and DNA operations are applied to medical image encryption. The authors put forward some innovative ideas and methods, and the study has important reference significance for the research in related fields. However, there are some shortcomings that need to be modified by the author. 1. Figure 1 lacks the coordinate value and should be marked with a symbol representing the coordinate value. 2. Figure 2 is not a bifurcation diagram but a phase diagram of the new five-dimensional three-leaf chaotic system. 3. There are some language expression problems that need to be improved, such as: 1) "Firstly, the original key stream and the original image call the hash algorithm to generate the final key stream", Improper use of the subject of the predicate verb call. 2) "the encrypted image is I" in row 139 page 6, it should be "the original image to be encrypted image is I". 3) Change "matrix point" to "elements of matrix" is better. 4) In row 310 of page 11, "the decrypted image ..." should be " the encrypted image...". 5) "The image obtained after encryption by this algorithm is shown in Fig7." should be "the histogram of the encrypted image is shown in Fig7.","Fig 7. Histogram of the encryption image." should be "Fig 7. Histogram of the encrypted image." ,"encryption image"->"encrypted image", "decryption image"->"decrypted image". 6) "Fig8."->"Fig. 8", and so on. 7) The first cell of column 1 of Table 17 and Table 18 should be filled with a name word. Reviewer #3: The manuscript is well written but fails in justifications. Please include the problem statement in the abstract. By problem I mean Medical image encryption and it differences from image encryption. Please include the reason that this approach is suited for Medical image encryption and maybe not for other kinds of encryption. And again the approaches used such as five-dimensional three-leaf chaotic system. Why do you think that other chaotic maps can not suit this problem? The same for DNA operatons. ****** 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: Yes:** Congxu Zhu 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.0260014.r001
Revision 1
24 Sep 2021 Author Response Response to Reviewers First of all, the authors would like to thank the editor and the reviewers for their careful reading of this paper and helpful comments, which have been very useful for improving the quality and presentation of this paper. According to the editor and reviewers’ comments, we have revised our manuscript. You will find that we have corrected the manuscript taking in the editor and reviewers’ suggestions. We apologize to the editor and the reviewers for all the troubles we have caused with this manuscript. The explanation of the modifications as well as corrections in this revision can be arranged as follows: Editor: Response to the editor’s comments: 1)The author should clearly represent, perhaps at the section heading, their contribution, which is the proposed/new higher order chaotic system with clearer justification of the choice of using DNA recombination. Response: The author agrees with the editor's suggestion. This algorithm does not clearly explain the reason for choosing a five-dimensional three-leaf chaotic system and DNA recombination operation. Therefore, the author first added Sec. 2.2.1 and Sec. 2.2.2 in Sec. 2.2 to analyze the dynamic characteristics of the five-dimensional three-leaf chaotic system and test the randomness of the chaotic sequence. In the analysis process, the five-dimensional three-leaf chaotic system is compared with other high-dimensional chaotic systems, and the reason for choosing this system is explained. In addition, the author gave a more detailed description of the DNA recombination paragraph in the introduction, and added a paragraph in Sec. 2.5 to explain the reasons for choosing DNA recombination operations. In conclusion, the suggestions given by the editor have been carefully revised. 2)The paper should be carefully revised to avoid any grammatical errors and typos. Response: The author agrees with the editor's suggestion, and there are some spelling and grammatical errors in this article. Therefore, the author has corrected the spelling and grammatical errors in this article. The specific content of the amendment can be seen in the content of the response to the reviewer's comments. 3)The figures and tables in Sec. 4 are to be explained with more details and a summary of the analysis and comparisons is required to highlight the merit of the proposed system in support of the conclusions. Response: The author agrees with the editor's opinion. The figures and tables in the Sec. 4 does not have a more detailed explanation and analysis to highlight the advantages of the algorithm. Therefore, an appropriate amount of supplementary explanations have been made in each subsection of the Sec. 4, and the specific revisions can be seen in the comments of the reviewers. Reviewers: Reviewer #1: Response to the reviewer #1’s comments: 1)There are some spelling and syntax errors, which need correction (e.g. “an medical image encryption algorithm” -> “a medical image encryption algorithm”). Response: The author agrees with the comments given by reviewer 1. The “an medical image encryption algorithm” in line 4 of the abstract section on page 1, line 78 on page 3, and line 579 on page 21 have been changed to “ a medical image encryption algorithm”. 2)After Eq. (1) and Eq. (2), “where” is necessary. Response: The author agrees with reviewer 1’s opinion that there is indeed no “where” in Eq. (1) and Eq. (2). Therefore, “where” is added to line 89 on page 3, and “where” is added to line 101 on page 4. And after reading this article carefully, add a sentence leading to the formula before each formula to make the formula reference more standardized. 3)Fig. 2 is not a bifurcation diagram but several phase portraits. Besides, just two phase portraits will be enough. Response: The author agrees with reviewer 1 that it is a phase diagram instead of a bifurcation diagram, and it is unnecessary to use a lot of phase diagrams. Therefore, the author revises Sec. 2.2. First, change the bifurcation diagram in line 112 of page 4 to a phase diagram, and the title of Fig. 2 also becomes a phase diagram. Only the two phase diagrams x-y-z and z-ω-v are retained, and the contents of Fig. 2 have been replaced in the Figure folder. 4)In Line 170 and Eq. (10), “x(1), y(1), z(1), w(1), z(1)”-> “x(1), y(1), z(1), w(1), v(1)”. Response: The author agrees with the opinion of reviewer 1, in the original manuscript line 170 “x(1), y(1), z(1), w(1), z(1)” and Eq. (10) “x(1), y(1), z(1), w(1), z(1)” does have a problem. Therefore, the author changed “x(1), y(1), z(1), w(1), z(1)” to “x(1), y(1), z(1), w(1), v(1)” in line 240 of page 9 of the revised manuscript. The last appearance of “z(1)” in Eq. (10) is changed to “v(1)”. 5)Recently, the ISI-encoded chaotic sequences were applied to the application of image encryption in [Bao H, Hua ZY, Liu WB, et al. Discrete memristive neuron model and its interspike interval-encoded application in image encryption. Sci China Tech Sci, 2021, 64, 10.1007/s11431-021-1845-x]. Can these chaotic sequences be used for the work of this paper? Response: First of all, thank you very much for recommending articles to us to enrich our articles. We have read this article carefully, which provides a new perspective for image encryption. First, a discrete mHR model is proposed, and then an ISI encoding algorithm is proposed. Using this algorithm, a chaotic sequence that can be applied to image encryption is generated. Subsequent writing of other articles will consider applying the content of this article, and this article has been introduced into this article. Again, thank you for your recommendation. Reviewer #2: Response to the reviewer #2’s comments: 1)Figure 1 lacks the coordinate value and should be marked with a symbol representing the coordinate value. Response: The author agrees with reviewer 2’s opinion that Fig. 1 lacks coordinate value symbols to mark coordinate values. The author replaces Fig. 1 with coordinate value symbols for the original Fig. 1 in the folder Figure. 2)Figure 2 is not a bifurcation diagram but a phase diagram of the new five-dimensional three-leaf chaotic system. Response: The author agrees with reviewer 2’s opinion that it is indeed a phase diagram rather than a bifurcation diagram. Therefore, the author revises Sec. 2.2. First, the author changed the bifurcation diagram in line 112 on page 4 to a phase diagram, and the title of Fig. 2 also became a phase diagram, and only retained the x-y-z and z-w-v phase diagrams to remove other redundant phase diagrams. 3)There are some language expression problems that need to be improved, such as: a)“Firstly, the original key stream and the original image call the hash algorithm to generate the final key stream”, Improper use of the subject of the predicate verb call. Response: The author agrees with reviewer 2’s opinion that the subject of the predicate verb is used improperly. The author revised this sentence again, and the revised sentence can be seen from lines 195 to 197 on page 8 of the revised manuscript. b)“the encrypted image is I” in row 139 page 6, it should be “the original image to be encrypted image is I”. Response: The author agrees with reviewer 2. Therefore, the author has made corresponding revisions in lines 207-208 on page 8 according to the revision tips of reviewer 2. c)Change “matrix point” to “elements of matrix” is better. Response: The author agrees with reviewer 2. Therefore, the author made amendments in accordance with the prompts given by the reviewer. There are 3 amendments in total, which are line 275 on page 10, line 313 on page 11, and line 315 on page 11. d)In row 310 of page 11, “the decrypted image ...” should be “ the encrypted image...”. Response: The author agrees with reviewer 2. Therefore, the author made corresponding amendments in line 386-387 on page 13 in accordance with the reviewer's amendment prompts. e)“The image obtained after encryption by this algorithm is shown in Fig7.” should be “the histogram of the encrypted image is shown in Fig7.”,“Fig 7. Histogram of the encryption image.” should be “Fig. 7 Histogram of the encrypted image.” ,“encryption image”->“encrypted image”, “decryption image”->“decrypted image”. Response: The author agrees with reviewer 2. First of all, the author is in line 448-449 on page 17, and the title of Fig. 7 has been revised according to the reviewer’s revision prompts. Secondly, the author changed all “encryption image” to “encrypted image” and all “decryption image” to “decrypted image”, and the revised manuscript marked all changes. f)“Fig8.”->“Fig. 8”, and so on. Response: The author checked the latex template downloaded from the official website based on the reviewer's comments, but the format generated by the template used is fixed. Neither the title nor the main text gives the format suggested by the reviewer. So we still use the format in the official website template. The format in the official website template is shown in the figure below. g)The first cell of column 1 of Table 17 and Table 18 should be filled with a name word. Response: The author agrees with reviewer 2’s opinion that the first cell in column 1 of Table 17 and Table 18 has no name word. Table 17 and Table 18 suggested by the reviewer are now Table 19 and Table 20. Therefore, the author has added name words to the first cell of column 1 of Table 19 on page 19 and the first cell of column 1 of Table 20 on page 19. Reviewer #3: Response to the reviewer #3’s comments: 1)Please include the problem statement in the abstract. By problem I mean Medical image encryption and it differences from image encryption. Please include the reason that this approach is suited for Medical image encryption and maybe not for other kinds of encryption. Response: The author agrees with reviewer 3. First of all, medical image encryption is different from ordinary image encryption. Medical image encryption has higher requirements for the security, reliability and time efficiency of the algorithm. For security and reliability, on the one hand, various security tests such as key space, information entropy, and histogram are carried out in Sec. 4. On the other hand, it should reflect the accurate restoration ability of the decryption algorithm. Sec. 4.2 is added to illustrate this problem. For time efficiency analysis, the article has compared the latest medical image encryption algorithm and common image encryption algorithm in Sec. 4.11, and the result proves that this algorithm has strong real-time performance. Secondly, medical image encryption is different from ordinary image encryption, but the algorithm that can carry out medical image encryption can also carry out ordinary image encryption to a certain extent. Sec. 4.12 shows the encryption effect of this algorithm on ordinary image encryption. Finally, in the abstract and conclusion of this article, the above new content is supplemented to make the context correspond. 2)And again the approaches used such as five-dimensional three-leaf chaotic system. Why do you think that other chaotic maps can not suit this problem? Response: The author agrees with reviewer 3. The author clarified the reasons for choosing the chaotic system from two aspects: the dynamic characteristics analysis of the five-dimensional three-leaf chaotic system and the random analysis of the chaotic sequence. First of all, the author adds Sec. 2.2.1, combined with the article that first proposed the chaotic system, and carried out dynamic analysis of the phase diagram, bifurcation diagram, balance points and other dynamics of the five-dimensional three-leaf chaotic system. Secondly, a new Sec. 2.2.2 uses the NIST test to test the randomness of the chaotic sequence and compare it with the NIST P value of the high-dimensional chaotic system. According to the experimental results, it can be known that the randomness of both the dynamic characteristics and the chaotic sequence is higher than that of most high-dimensional chaotic systems, and the author who proposed the system also applied the chaos to the image encryption algorithm to further illustrate the practicability of the chaotic system . 3)The same for DNA operatons. Response: The author agrees with reviewer 3. First of all, the author has made some supplements in the introduction to the paragraphs that introduce the principles of DNA mutation and DNA recombination, indicating that DNA mutation and recombination operations enrich the encryption technology. In addition, the author added a paragraph in Sec. 2.4 to explain the reasons for using DNA mutation operations, and a paragraph in Sec. 2.5 to illustrate the reasons for using DNA recombination operations. In conclusion, the two DNA operations improve the scrambling and diffusion effects at the bit level, and the robustness and security of the algorithm are better guaranteed. Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0260014.r002
2 Nov 2021 Decision Letter - Hussain Md Abu Nyeem, Editor Medical image encryption algorithm based on a new five-dimensional three-leaf chaotic system and genetic operation PONE-D-21-19375R1 Dear Dr. Xu, 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, Hussain Md Abu Nyeem, Ph.D. Academic Editor PLOS ONE 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: All comments have been addressed Reviewer #3: All comments have been addressed Reviewer #4: All comments have been addressed Reviewer #5: 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 Reviewer #3: Yes Reviewer #4: No Reviewer #5: Yes ****** 3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes Reviewer #3: Yes Reviewer #4: Yes Reviewer #5: 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 Reviewer #3: Yes Reviewer #4: Yes Reviewer #5: 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 Reviewer #3: Yes Reviewer #4: Yes Reviewer #5: 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: All my commends have been addressed in the revised manuscript. This paper can be accepted in the current version. Reviewer #2: (No Response) Reviewer #3: The authors have addressed all the comments and the responses were satisfying, therefore I suggest the article for being accepted. Reviewer #4: (No Response) Reviewer #5: the authors have satisfactorily addressed all the suggested comments. to improve further, Give more justification - More comparison ****** 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 Reviewer #3: Yes:** Mohammad H Moattar Reviewer #4: No Reviewer #5: No https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0260014.r003
Formally Accepted
16 Nov 2021 Acceptance Letter - Hussain Md Abu Nyeem, Editor PONE-D-21-19375R1 Medical image encryption algorithm based on a new five-dimensional three-leaf chaotic system and genetic operation Dear Dr. Xu: 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. Hussain Md Abu Nyeem Academic Editor PLOS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0260014.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 .