Peer Review History

Original SubmissionMay 20, 2022
Decision Letter - Ahmed Mancy Mosa, Editor

PONE-D-22-14650Study on Connectivity of Buried Pipeline Network Considering Nodes Reliability under Seismic ActionPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Huang,

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 consider all comments

Please submit your revised manuscript by 17 June 2022. 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,

Ahmed Mancy Mosa, 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. Please note that PLOS ONE has specific guidelines on code sharing for submissions in which author-generated code underpins the findings in the manuscript. In these cases, all author-generated code must be made available without restrictions upon publication of the work. Please review our guidelines at https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/materials-and-software-sharing#loc-sharing-code and ensure that your code is shared in a way that follows best practice and facilitates reproducibility and reuse.

3. Thank you for stating the following in the Acknowledgments Section of your manuscript: 

"This research was supported by the Hainan Province Key R&D Program (Social Development) Project of China (No. ZDYF2022SHFZ089), and the Jiangsu Province Key R&D Program (Social Development) Project of China (No. BE2021681)."

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: 

"This research was supported by the Hainan Province Key R&D Program (Social Development) Project of China (No. ZDYF2022SHFZ089), and the Jiangsu Province Key R&D Program (Social Development) Project of China (No. BE2021681)."

Please include your amended statements within your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf.

4. 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

5. We note that Figures 2, 10, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, and 18 in your submission contain [map/satellite] images which may be copyrighted. All PLOS content is published under the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY 4.0), which means that the manuscript, images, and Supporting Information files will be freely available online, and any third party is permitted to access, download, copy, distribute, and use these materials in any way, even commercially, with proper attribution. For these reasons, we cannot publish previously copyrighted maps or satellite images created using proprietary data, such as Google software (Google Maps, Street View, and Earth). For more information, see our copyright guidelines: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/licenses-and-copyright.

We require you to either (1) present written permission from the copyright holder to publish these figures specifically under the CC BY 4.0 license, or (2) remove the figures from your submission:

a. You may seek permission from the original copyright holder of Figures 2, 10, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, and 18 to publish the content specifically under the CC BY 4.0 license.  

We recommend that you contact the original copyright holder with the Content Permission Form (http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=7c09/content-permission-form.pdf) and the following text:

“I request permission for the open-access journal PLOS ONE to publish XXX under the Creative Commons Attribution License (CCAL) CC BY 4.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). Please be aware that this license allows unrestricted use and distribution, even commercially, by third parties. Please reply and provide explicit written permission to publish XXX under a CC BY license and complete the attached form.”

Please upload the completed Content Permission Form or other proof of granted permissions as an ""Other"" file with your submission.

In the figure caption of the copyrighted figure, please include the following text: “Reprinted from [ref] under a CC BY license, with permission from [name of publisher], original copyright [original copyright year].”

b. If you are unable to obtain permission from the original copyright holder to publish these figures under the CC BY 4.0 license or if the copyright holder’s requirements are incompatible with the CC BY 4.0 license, please either i) remove the figure or ii) supply a replacement figure that complies with the CC BY 4.0 license. Please check copyright information on all replacement figures and update the figure caption with source information. If applicable, please specify in the figure caption text when a figure is similar but not identical to the original image and is therefore for illustrative purposes only.

The following resources for replacing copyrighted map figures may be helpful:

USGS National Map Viewer (public domain): http://viewer.nationalmap.gov/viewer/

The Gateway to Astronaut Photography of Earth (public domain): http://eol.jsc.nasa.gov/sseop/clickmap/

Maps at the CIA (public domain): https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/index.html and https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/cia-maps-publications/index.html

NASA Earth Observatory (public domain): http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/

Landsat: http://landsat.visibleearth.nasa.gov/

USGS EROS (Earth Resources Observatory and Science (EROS) Center) (public domain): http://eros.usgs.gov/#

Natural Earth (public domain): http://www.naturalearthdata.com/

[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: 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: The article entitled ‘Study on Connectivity of Buried Pipeline Network Considering Nodes Reliability under Seismic Action’ studies the reliability of the connectivity of complex pipeline networks of nodes of pipelines.

The paper is well organized and structured. However, the English is rather poor. It is suggested to be reviewed by a native speaker. Additionally, there are some grammatical and typographical errors. In some parts, it is very difficult to understand and read what they are proposing. The abstract should be re-written avoiding long sentences and clearly indicating the novelty and the objective of this work.

My main concern is the lack of novelty of this work. The authors do not really highlight what they have done compared to other works. Also, the list of references is scarce and it is not updated. Therefore, it is very complicated to understand why this work is worth being published.

Abstract#

It should be re-written.

Introduction#

Figure 1 is not clear nor explained. Also, it is not referenced in the text.

Results and conclusions#

The results part is rather scarce. Additional comments could be added to analyse the results and to ultimately improve the quality of the paper. Conclusions could be improved after enhancing the results part.

Reviewer #2: The paper presents an improved method to assess reliability of connectivity of buried pipeline network considering nodes, deduced a more detailed and comprehensive non-intersecting minimum path recursive decomposition algorithm considering nodes such as elbows and tees. The study result shows that after considering the elbow, tee, and other nodes, the reliability of the network system decreases significantly. The failure of one node usually leads to the failure of the whole pipeline section, and the failure probability is greater in the area with dense elbow and tee nodes.

(1) As shown in Fig.3, the elbow and tee are buried in two type soils, but the properties of the two type soils are not given. How to taking into account of the influence of different soils to elbow and tee under earthquake?

(2) Apart from part 3, in what else way can the method be further testified?

(3) In part 5” …based on the famous 472 analytic hierarchy process…”, the “famous” is not needed.

(4) The top left small figure of Fig.10 is an enlarged local of the right figure, so a circle is needed for right figure indicating the position of the local area.

(5) The study result shows that the nodes will significantly reduce the reliability of the network. Can the authors give some suggestions to improve the node reliability?

In general, the paper improved reliability analysis method by considering nodes, and the study result becomes more realistic. This new method can be further used in pipeline network analysis. The paper will be ready for publication after modification.

**********

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

Editor’s Comments:

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming.

Response: Thank you for your comment. We have typeset the manuscript as required by the template, and we have also uploaded the manuscript file with the specified name and the comment response file as required.

2. Please note that PLOS ONE has specific guidelines on code sharing for submissions in which author-generated code underpins the findings in the manuscript. In these cases, all author-generated code must be made available without restrictions upon publication of the work. Please review our guidelines at https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/materials-and-software-sharing#loc-sharing-code and ensure that your code is shared in a way that follows best practice and facilitates reproducibility and reuse.

Response: Thank you for your comment. The results listed in the manuscript are implemented exactly according to the formulae proposed in the manuscript and the calculation steps, so no software code is involved.

3. Please remove any funding-related text from the manuscript and let us know how you would like to update your Funding Statement.

Response: We are very sorry for our negligence of the Funding Statement. We have remove funding-related text from the manuscript.

4. Please ensure that you have an ORCID iD and that it is validated in Editorial Manager.

Response: Thank you for your comment. I have updated my information in the system about ORCID iD.

5. We note that Figures 2, 10, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, and 18 in your submission contain [map/satellite] images which may be copyrighted. All PLOS content is published under the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY 4.0), which means that the manuscript, images, and Supporting Information files will be freely available online, and any third party is permitted to access, download, copy, distribute, and use these materials in any way, even commercially, with proper attribution. For these reasons, we cannot publish previously copyrighted maps or satellite images created using proprietary data, such as Google software (Google Maps, Street View, and Earth). For more information, see our copyright guidelines: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/licenses-and-copyright.

We require you to either (1) present written permission from the copyright holder to publish these figures specifically under the CC BY 4.0 license, or (2) remove the figures from your submission.

Response: Thank you for your comment. This article is based on the research projects "the Hainan Province Key R&D Program (Social Development) Project of China (No. ZDYF2022SHFZ089), and the Jiangsu Province Key R&D Program (Social Development) Project of China (No. BE2021681)". The projects required that the method we proposed should have demonstration projects to test the feasibility of the method, so the project team cooperated with Suzhou Industrial Park Qingyuan Huayan Water Co. LTD to provide us with the pipe network data. The map information in Figures 2, 10, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, and 18 (modified figure numbers: Figure 2, 11, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 19 in the revised manuscript), which are covered in this manuscript, were obtained from Suzhou Industrial Park Qingyuan Huayan Water Co. LTD, which owns the rights to use and publish the map information. Therefore, this manuscript has added the caption in the captions of Figures 2, 10, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, and 18 (modified figures numbered: Figures 2, 11, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 19 in the revised manuscript): Republished under a CC BY license, with permission from Suzhou Industrial Park Qingyuan Huayan Water Co. LTD, original copyright 2019. We have provided the Permission form in the form of Supporting files. And we have added "Data Availability Statement" at the end of the manuscript. Please contact me if you need any other information about this content, thank you!

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer #1

Comment 1:

1. The paper is well organized and structured. However, the English is rather poor. It is suggested to be reviewed by a native speaker. Additionally, there are some grammatical and typographical errors. In some parts, it is very difficult to understand and read what they are proposing. The abstract should be re-written avoiding long sentences and clearly indicating the novelty and the objective of this work.

Response: First of all, thank you very much for your comments. We have had a native English-speaking editor revise the language of the manuscript in depth, including grammar and sentence structure, and the results are detailed in "Revised Manuscript with Track Changes". This manuscript has been reformatted in accordance with the journal's formatting requirements. We have also rewritten the abstract of this manuscript and reorganized the problems studied in this manuscript to express the novelty of this work. Long sentences have been replaced by multiple short sentences with synonyms. Please see the abstract section of the manuscript for details of the revisions.

2. My main concern is the lack of novelty of this work. The authors do not really highlight what they have done compared to other works. Also, the list of references is scarce and it is not updated. Therefore, it is very complicated to understand why this work is worth being published.

Response: Thank you for your comment. The innovative point of this paper is to propose a probabilistic analysis algorithm of pipeline network connectivity considering nodes, which enables the accuracy of the calculation results of pipeline network connectivity under earthquake effects to be effectively improved. It provides an accurate basis for the seismic design and post-disaster rescue of pipeline networks. We updated the cited references and cited more academic achievements related to this study in recent three years. The research results of this paper are of great significance to the seismic connectivity calculation and risk assessment of buried pipeline network.

3. Abstract#

It should be re-written.

Response: Thank you very much for your comments. By sorting out the innovative points of the article, we have rewritten the abstract. Please see the revised manuscript for the detailed revision results.

4. Introduction#

Figure 1 is not clear nor explained. Also, it is not referenced in the text.

Response: We are very sorry for our negligence of Figure 1. We have added a reference and an explanation to Figure 1 in lines 40-43.

5. Results and conclusions#

The results part is rather scarce. Additional comments could be added to analyse the results and to ultimately improve the quality of the paper. Conclusions could be improved after enhancing the results part.

Response: First of all, thank you very much for your comments. This manuscript adds measures to improve the reliability of pipeline nodes in the results analysis section for large pipeline networks. In the discussion section, the calculation process of ANP method for risk assessment of pipeline networks and the calculation results in Table 6 are added and compared with the method proposed in this paper. These added discussions can effectively improve the quality of the article. And the description of the ANP method is also added in the conclusion section. Details of the revisions can be viewed in lines 504-510, 524-569, and 585-590.

Reviewer #2

1. As shown in Fig.3, the elbow and tee are buried in two type soils, but the properties of the two type soils are not given. How to taking into account of the influence of different soils to elbow and tee under earthquake?

Response: Thank you very much for your comments. According to the reviewer’s comment, we have added the physical properties of the two soils involved, including test methods, basic physical parameters, and dynamic properties, as detailed in lines 290-301 of the manuscript. And for the effects of different soils on elbows and tees under seismic action, we have mainly used the pipe-soil interaction, including soil pressure and pipe-soil deformation transfer coefficient, and both quantities involve multiple factors in the soil and the pipe itself. Based on these factors, we correct the results calculated by numerical simulation to obtain the reliability of pipe sections at other locations. Please refer to lines 418-430 of the manuscript for details.

2. Apart from part 3, in what else way can the method be further testified?

Response: Thank you for your comment. The calculation results for the large pipeline network have been verified in two ways. One is to calculate the reliability of the pipeline network using the minimum path recursive decomposition algorithm considering nodes and not considering nodes respectively, and it can be found that the algorithm considering nodes is more in line with the actual situation after comparison. Second is to use the ANP method for the risk assessment calculation, and set the seismic effect as the main risk factor. It is found that the calculation results are similar to the calculation method proposed in this paper, and the relative deviation of both methods is within 20%, which again confirms the reliability of the calculation method proposed in this paper. For details, please refer to the "Calculation example: large complex pipeline network" and "Discussion" sections of the manuscript.

3. In part 5” …based on the famous 472 analytic hierarchy process…”, the “famous” is not needed.

Response: We agree with the reviewer’s comment. We have made the revise to this sentence according to the reviewer’s comment in lines 512-514.

4. The top left small figure of Fig.10 is an enlarged local of the right figure, so a circle is needed for right figure indicating the position of the local area.

Response: We agree with the reviewer’s comment. We have made the revise to Fig.10 (modified figure numbered: Figure 11 in the revised manuscript) according to the reviewer’s comment.

5. The study result shows that the nodes will significantly reduce the reliability of the network. Can the authors give some suggestions to improve the node reliability?

Response: Thank you for your comment. We have added recommendations to improve the reliability of the pipeline network nodes, including optimization of the design and construction of the pipeline network, as detailed in lines 504-510 of the manuscript.

Attachments
Attachment
Submitted filename: Response to reviewers.docx
Decision Letter - Ahmed Mancy Mosa, Editor

Study on connectivity of buried pipeline network considering nodes reliability under seismic action

PONE-D-22-14650R1

Dear Dr. Huang,

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,

Ahmed Mancy Mosa, 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 #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 #2: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

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 #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 #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 #2: Reviewers' comments are meticulously addressed by the authors. The paper is improved. No comments from our side

**********

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 #2: No

**********

Formally Accepted
Acceptance Letter - Ahmed Mancy Mosa, Editor

PONE-D-22-14650R1

Study on connectivity of buried pipeline network considering nodes reliability under seismic action

Dear Dr. Huang:

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. Ahmed Mancy Mosa

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 .