Peer Review History
Original SubmissionFebruary 23, 2022 |
---|
PONE-D-22-05396Dynamical analysis and optimal control for an information transmission model considering the phenomena of “Super Transmission” and “Asymptomatic Infection”PLOS ONE Dear Dr. Hou, 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. ============================== ACADEMIC EDITOR: The manuscript needs minor revision according to the reviewers' comments. ============================== Please submit your revised manuscript by Apr 28 2022 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:
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: https://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, Mohammed S. Abdo 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 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 3. 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: Dear Authors, we have received the reports from our advisors on your manuscript, "Dynamical analysis and optimal control for an information transmission model considering the phenomena of "Super Transmission"and "Asymptomatic Infection", which you submitted to "PLOS ONE". Based on the advice received, I have decided that your manuscript could be reconsidered for publication should you be prepared to incorporate minor revisions. When preparing your revised manuscript, you are asked to carefully consider the reviewer's comments which can be found in the system and submit a list of responses to the comments and mark them in red if possible. The manuscript needs to address the reviewers' comments. Best regards Mohammed S. Abdo Academic Editor [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 ********** 2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: N/A ********** 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: Review report PLOS ONE Manuscript Number: PONE-D-22-05396 Dynamical analysis and optimal control for an information transmission model considering the phenomena of “Super Transmission” and “Asymptomatic Infection” by Sida Kang, Xilin Hou, Yuhan Hu, Hongyu Liu 1 Summary and Recommendation: The authors compared the phenomenon of "Super transmission" and "Asymp- tomatic infection" in COVID-19 transmission to information transmission. The former is similar to authoritative information transmission individuals, whereas the latter is similar to individuals with low acceptance in information trans- mission. Also, they constructed an S2EIR model with transmitter authority and individual acceptance levels. Then, they analyzed the asymptotic stability of information-free and information-existence equilibrium on a local and global scale, as well as the model’s basic reproduction number, R0. Based on the Pon- tryagin maximum principle, an optimal control strategy is designed to e¤ectively facilitate information transmission. The numerical simulation corroborates the theoretical analysis results and the system’s sensitivity to control parameter changes. This work is well written and the results are new. Before the article can be published, some points need to some minor revision: 1.1 Comments Following misprints or suggestions are observed. The authors should study the paper carefully for other possible typos. 1) Make sure all equations are properly cited 2) Introductions need to be improved with more details of current work. Please mention which challenges you face to prove the results. 3) What is the di¤erence between stability and asymptotic stability? 4) It is very important to know the advantages of the present study? So, the introduction needs to improve by highlighting the main advantages?. 5) What are the means of the matrixes F and V in equation 6. and how do obtain them? please explain it. 6) How obtain equation 7? add some information. 7) In system 8, replace S;E1;E2; I;R with S;E1 ;E2 ; I;R: 8) How was equation 29 chosen in this form? which conditions followed for it? 9) I suggest to improve the introduction section by studying some useful re- cent papers/books, for example: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chaos.2020.109867, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chaos.2021.110931, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rinp.2021.104045. ‘10) Update references according to the style of journal. Overall, the work is well written and the results are interesting. 1.2 My Recommendation I would suggest that the paper should be accepted with minor revision due to some of the corrections I pointed out above and in order to raise the standard of this paper. The English need to be polished, punctuation mark needs to be administered after each equation. Finally, I will be available for further revision of this paper. After the authors take into account the suggestions as above I recommend the publication of the paper. 2 Reviewer #2: In this paper, the authors compared the phenomenon of “Super transmission” and “Asymptomatic infection” in COVID-19 transmission to information transmission. They then constructed an S2EIR model with transmitter authority and individual acceptance levels and analyzed the asymptotic stability, as well as the model’s basic reproduction number. Moreover, an optimal control strategy was designed based on the Pontryagin maximum principle. Finally, the numerical simulation is presented. This paper is very interesting to read. The analysis in this paper is very good. The results are original and present a good degree of novelty. The techniques in this paper present are well-employed to obtain the intended results, and the proofs are correct. This paper needs a minor revision, and I would like to recommend for accepting this paper after the following comments: 1) There are some typos and grammatical errors in some parts of this text, especially in the introduction section. Please double-check all sentences and correct all sentences that need to be corrected grammatically. 2) Please pay attention to all punctuation marks in the text. 3) Update the recent references related to this work; Chaos, Solitons & Fractals, 135, 109867. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chaos.2020.109867; Axioms 2021, 10(3), 228; https://doi.org/10.3390/axioms10030228. 4) I suggest that the authors amend the article title as follows: "Dynamical analysis and optimal control of the developed information transmission model". ********** 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: Yes: Mohammed A. Almalahi 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 |
Dynamical analysis and optimal control of the developed information transmission model PONE-D-22-05396R1 Dear Dr. Hou, 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, Mohammed S. Abdo Academic Editor PLOS ONE Additional Editor Comments (optional): The authors did their best to improve the manuscript and made some changes to the manuscript according to the reviewers' reports. These changes did not affect the content and frame of the paper. Therefore, I decided to accept the manuscript provided that the authors delete some of the references suggested by the reviewers and keep the references related to the topic of the paper. 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 ********** 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: N/A ********** 4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available? The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ********** 5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English? PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ********** 6. Review Comments to the Author Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters) Reviewer #1: The authors compared the phenomenon of "Super transmission" and "Asymp- tomatic infection" in COVID-19 transmission to information transmission. The former is similar to authoritative information transmission individuals, whereas the latter is similar to individuals with low acceptance in information trans- mission. Also, they constructed an S2EIR model with transmitter authority and individual acceptance levels. Then, they analyzed the asymptotic stability of information-free and information-existence equilibrium on a local and global scale, as well as the model’s basic reproduction number, R0. Based on the Pon- tryagin maximum principle, an optimal control strategy is designed to e¤ectively facilitate information transmission. The numerical simulation corroborates the theoretical analysis results and the system’s sensitivity to control parameter changes. This work is well written and the results are new The authors take into account the suggestions. All comments have been addressed. I recommend the publication of the paper. Reviewer #2: Dear Authors, I carefully reviewed the revised manuscript PONE-D-22-05396R1 entitled “Dynamical analysis and optimal control of the developed information transmission model” and I found the following: This paper is very interesting to read. The analysis in this paper is very good. The results are original and present a good degree of novelty. The techniques in this paper present are well-employed to obtain the intended results, and the proofs are correct. So, the revised manuscript is suitable for publication. ********** 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 |
Formally Accepted |
PONE-D-22-05396R1 Dynamical analysis and optimal control of the developed information transmission model Dear Dr. Hou: 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. Mohammed S. Abdo 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 .