Optimization of technique parameters of pneumatic molding for rice straw bowl tray

Hailiang Li; Chun Wang; Haitian Sun; Huafen Zou; Hongxuan Wang; Huiyuan Wang; Xinyu Liu; Zhenzhen Yu

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0270421

Peer Review History

Original SubmissionJune 23, 2021
3 Nov 2021 Decision Letter - Gabriele Oliva, Editor PONE-D-21-20345Optimization of Technique Parameters of Pneumatic Molding Machine for Nutritive Rice Straw Potted TrayPLOS ONE Dear Dr. YU, 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 Dec 18 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: 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, Gabriele Oliva, 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. 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 include a separate caption for each figure in your manuscript. 4. Please include captions for your Supporting Information files at the end of your manuscript, and update any in-text citations to match accordingly. Please see our Supporting Information Additional Editor Comments (if provided): Two reviews were collected, both suggesting major revision. After reviewing the paper myself, I agree with the reviewers' evaluation. [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: Partly ******** 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: No ****** 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: No ****** 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: The article provides a theoretical basis for optimization of pneumatic molding technological parameters of nutritive rice straw potted tray. Even if the contribution is clear and the article is well structured, there are some issues which have to be solved: 1) In general, the English is too poor: the entire article needs improvement in writing 2) Abstract has to be more general without reporting technical data which will be addressed in the following sections. Thus, abstract rewriting is necessary 3) The state of the art has to be improved by providing a higher number of references. Based on the comments above, I would like to accept this paper if my concerns are carefully addressed. Reviewer #2: The paper entitled “Optimization of Technique Parameters of Pneumatic Molding Machine for Nutritive Rice Straw Potted Tray” is a study that proposes a multi factor analysis of production technology of nutritive rice straw potted tray. The study aims at investigating the influence of 3 molding parameters (i.e., vacuum degree, holding time of molding die and absorption time) on 3 molding indices (i.e., pot hole molding rate, relaxation density and rupture-resisting strength). This paper findings could be helpful to optimize the pneumatic molding process in view of an industrialized production of nutritive rice straw potted tray, however there are some important aspects that need to be addressed before publication: The authors need to revise the entire manuscript carefully and correct the multiple grammar and spelling mistakes. The overall English quality and the multiple typos make the reading of the paper really hard. For instance: - “demolding damage root systems” (pag. 2 line 4) - “Maximum stress borne” (pag. 9 line 14) - “research institute chinese academy of tropical agriculture sciences” (page 3) - Check Table 3 Header There is a lack of a proper state of the art section. In the introduction section you cite Teng Cuiquing’s study but it is not clear which results were obtained in the degradation property test. Moreover, you mention a few other studies without underlying which are the advantages and limitations of each type of potted tray. In the Introduction Section it is not clear in which way pneumatic molding mode may solve the problems you stated above. In the Introduction section you do not say in which proportion straws were blended with raw materials. It is not clear the experimental setup and how long the seriflux was preserved in the seriflux pond. At Pag. 5 - you make a list of the components of the machine. Please describe a general process of pneumatic molding and how each system is used in the process. In the Test method Section you should specify in which proportion water and adhesive were placed in seriflux and you should consider adding a few lines to explain the testing procedure. ****** 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.0270421.r001
Revision 1
28 Apr 2022 Author Response Reviewer #1: The article provides a theoretical basis for optimization of pneumatic molding technological parameters of nutritive rice straw potted tray. Even if the contribution is clear and the article is well structured, there are some issues which have to be solved: Reviewers' comments: 1)In general, the English is too poor: the entire article needs improvement in writing 2)Abstract has to be more general without reporting technical data which will be addressed in the following sections. Thus, abstract rewriting is necessary 3)The state of the art has to be improved by providing a higher number of references. Reviewer's Responses to Questions 1)The entire paper has been revised and professionally polished in English. 2)The paper abstract is simplified and the technical data content is removed. 3)The number of relevant references was increased. Reviewer #2: The paper entitled “Optimization of Technique Parameters of Pneumatic Molding Machine for Nutritive Rice Straw Potted Tray” is a study that proposes a multi factor analysis of production technology of nutritive rice straw potted tray. The study aims at investigating the influence of 3 molding parameters (i.e., vacuum degree, holding time of molding die and absorption time) on 3 molding indices (i.e., pot hole molding rate, relaxation density and rupture-resisting strength). This paper findings could be helpful to optimize the pneumatic molding process in view of an industrialized production of nutritive rice straw potted tray, however there are some important aspects that need to be addressed before publication: Reviewers' comments: 1)The authors need to revise the entire manuscript carefully and correct the multiple grammar and spelling mistakes. The overall English quality and the multiple typos make the reading of the paper really hard. 2)There is a lack of a proper state of the art section. In the introduction section you cite Teng Cuiquing’s study but it is not clear which results were obtained in the degradation property test. Moreover, you mention a few other studies without underlying which are the advantages and limitations of each type of potted tray. 3)In the Introduction Section it is not clear in which way pneumatic molding mode may solve the problems you stated above. 4)In the Introduction section you do not say in which proportion straws were blended with raw materials. It is not clear the experimental setup and how long the seriflux was preserved in the seriflux pond. 5)At Pag. 5 - you make a list of the components of the machine. Please describe a general process of pneumatic molding and how each system is used in the process. 6)In the Test method Section you should specify in which proportion water and adhesive were placed in seriflux and you should consider adding a few lines to explain the testing procedure. Reviewer's Responses to Questions 1)The entire paper has been revised and professionally polished in English. 2)In the second paragraph of the introduction, it was discussed on biomass seedling bowl, which shows the characteristics and problems of different kinds of biomass seedling bowl, which provides the foundation for nutritive rice straw bowl. 3)The third paragraph of the introduction illustrated the problems of the pressing forming method, and presented the principle and advantages of the pneumatic forming method. 4)The material pretreatment method and mixing ratio used in the test are reflected in the Test materials part, which is not reflected in the introduction to avoid repetition. The slurry can be stored in the slurry tank and can be used to prepare nutritive rice straw bowl at any time after uniform mixing. 5)The general process of pneumatic molding and how each system is used in the process were described in the part of Production method of potted tray. 6)The proportion of water and adhesive during the slurry preparation is expressed in lines 105-107 in the article Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.pdf https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0270421.r002
24 May 2022 Decision Letter - Gabriele Oliva, Editor PONE-D-21-20345R1Optimization of Technique Parameters of Pneumatic Molding Machine for Nutritive Rice Straw BowlPLOS ONE Dear Dr. YU, 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 Jul 08 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: 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: 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, Gabriele Oliva, Ph.D Academic Editor PLOS ONE Additional Editor Comments (if provided): One reviewer is still not convinced and raises some major comments. I invite the authors to prepare a major revision to address such comments (or to provide a compelling discussion why some of them were not addressed). Notice that it is my intention to take a final decision based on the next round of revision. [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 Reviewer #2: (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 Reviewer #2: Partly ****** 3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available? The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English? PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: No ****** 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 article provides a theoretical basis for optimization of pneumatic molding technological parameters of nutritive rice straw potted tray. The paper is now well-revised (specifically in the English writing) and thus it can be accepted for PLOS ONE publication. Reviewer #2: This paper proposes regression models between potted tray molding factors and molding properties to obtain the optimal technological parameters for the pneumatic molding process. The paper reports results that could be relevant in the optimization of pneumatic molding process for nutritive rice straws potted trays. The paper shows well-structured quantitative results and a well thought experimental analysis. However, the way the paper is written, in terms of structure of the sentences and poor English, often invalidates the fluency of the reading and the sense of the paper, preventing one from understanding its meaning and objective. In my opinion, the paper needs major revisions in terms of both written language and unclear points before publication on PLOSONE journal. Some of the unclear points or concepts that should be better explained are listed below: - In the state-of-the-art section you mainly explain the raw material used by other research groups to prepare the seedling bowl, but you scarcely report quantitative results in the existing bowls performance with respect to the parameters you decided to take into consideration. Moreover, you should highlight if any other study considered the same or similar quantitative performance parameters. - Explain what you mean by straw quality score. - In the text should emerge before why you chose to evaluate the vacuum degree, pressure preservation time and adsorption time factors and why they are so relevant during the molding process. Try to briefly explain the concept when you first introduce the factors you decided to evaluate. - It is not clear what you mean by bowl forming rate. - In the response surface test paragraph, you should insert a few lines at the beginning of the paragraph to introduce the reader to what this part of the paper is about, what tests will be explained in the paragraph and what parameters change from one test to the other. - In the response surface test paragraph, what is the software used to obtain the model shown in the figures? - Define in the text the acronym ANOVA before using it. A few expamples of unclear senstences/ misused English terms: - Line 3: light quality. - Line 3: The commonly used plastic plate mostly made of polyethylene, with low price, light quality and good water protection, but transplanting mold damage root system, not easy to degradation, improper recycling can cause environmental pollution. - “..forming ways, not only improve the utilization rate of agricultural waste, give full play to the residual value of agricultural waste, but also solve the agricultural waste and environmental pollution.” - Be sure each sentence makes sense. Make shorter sentences if needed to prevent the loss of the key concept you want to express by the sentence. ****** 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 [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.0270421.r003
Revision 2
29 May 2022 Author Response （1）In the state-of-the-art section you mainly explain the raw material used by other research groups to prepare the seedling bowl, but you scarcely report quantitative results in the existing bowls performance with respect to the parameters you decided to take into consideration. Moreover, you should highlight if any other study considered the same or similar quantitative performance parameters. Response：In this paper, the research of biomass seedling bowl molding technology and molding process are discussed, and the research status of pneumatic forming technology is explained. （2） Explain what you mean by straw quality score. Response：The explanation of straw quality score appears in the first paragraph of “2.3.1 Production method of potted tray”. （3） In the text should emerge before why you chose to evaluate the vacuum degree, pressure preservation time and adsorption time factors and why they are so relevant during the molding process. Try to briefly explain the concept when you first introduce the factors you decided to evaluate. Response：The reasons for selecting vacuum degree, adsorption time and pressure preservation time as experimental factors and their important correlation to the forming effect of seedling tray are described in the first three sections of “2.3.2 test factors”. （4） It is not clear what you mean by bowl forming rate. Response：Bowl forming rate is the bowl hole molding rate, the mean of bowl hole molding rate and the calculation formula are detailed in the second paragraph of “2.3.3 Test indices and measurement method”. （5） In the response surface test paragraph, you should insert a few lines at the beginning of the paragraph to introduce the reader to what this part of the paper is about, what tests will be explained in the paragraph and what parameters change from one test to the other. Response：The main contents of response surface analysis have been introduced in the first paragraph of “3.2 Response surface analysis”. （6） In the response surface test paragraph, what is the software used to obtain the model shown in the figures? Response：The software used for response surface analysis has been described in the first paragraph of “3.2 Response surface analysis”. （7） Define in the text the acronym ANOVA before using it. Response：ANOVA has been replaced with variance analysis. （8）A few expamples of unclear senstences/ misused English terms: - Line 3: light quality. - Line 3: The commonly used plastic plate mostly made of polyethylene, with low price, light quality and good water protection, but transplanting mold damage root system, not easy to degradation, improper recycling can cause environmental pollution. - “..forming ways, not only improve the utilization rate of agricultural waste, give full play to the residual value of agricultural waste, but also solve the agricultural waste and environmental pollution.” Response：The problems of unclear senstences/ misused English terms were revised. （9） Be sure each sentence makes sense. Make shorter sentences if needed to prevent the loss of the key concept you want to express by the sentence. Response：Inappropriate sentences in the text have been corrected. Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0270421.r004
10 Jun 2022 Decision Letter - Gabriele Oliva, Editor Optimization of Technique Parameters of Pneumatic Molding for Rice Straw Bowl Tray PONE-D-21-20345R2 Dear Dr. YU, 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, Gabriele Oliva, Ph.D Academic Editor PLOS ONE Additional Editor Comments (optional): The two reviewers recommend acceptance. I agree with them. 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: Yes ****** 4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available? The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English? PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 6. Review Comments to the Author Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters) Reviewer #1: (No Response) Reviewer #2: (No Response) ****** 7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files. If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public. Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy. Reviewer #1: No Reviewer #2: No ******** https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0270421.r005
Formally Accepted
26 Aug 2022 Acceptance Letter - Gabriele Oliva, Editor PONE-D-21-20345R2 Optimization of Technique Parameters of Pneumatic Molding for Rice Straw Bowl Tray Dear Dr. Yu: 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. Gabriele Oliva Academic Editor PLOS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0270421.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 .