Peer Review History

Original SubmissionFebruary 3, 2022
Decision Letter - Ardashir Mohammadzadeh, Editor

PONE-D-22-03484A reservoir bubble point pressure prediction model using Adaptive Neuro-Fuzzy Inference System (ANFIS) technique with trend analysisPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Alakbari,

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 Jun 15 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,

Ardashir Mohammadzadeh, Phd

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. In your Data Availability statement, you have not specified where the minimal data set underlying the results described in your manuscript can be found. PLOS defines a study's minimal data set as the underlying data used to reach the conclusions drawn in the manuscript and any additional data required to replicate the reported study findings in their entirety. All PLOS journals require that the minimal data set be made fully available. For more information about our data policy, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability.

Upon re-submitting your revised manuscript, please upload your study’s minimal underlying data set as either Supporting Information files or to a stable, public repository and include the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers within your revised cover letter. For a list of acceptable repositories, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-recommended-repositories. Any potentially identifying patient information must be fully anonymized.

Important: If there are ethical or legal restrictions to sharing your data publicly, please explain these restrictions in detail. Please see our guidelines for more information on what we consider unacceptable restrictions to publicly sharing data: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-unacceptable-data-access-restrictions. Note that it is not acceptable for the authors to be the sole named individuals responsible for ensuring data access.

We will update your Data Availability statement to reflect the information you provide in your cover letter.

4. Thank you for stating the following in the Funding Section of your manuscript:

“The authors would like to give their heartfelt thanks to the Yayasan Universiti Teknologi PETRONAS (YUTP FRG Grant No: 015LC0-226) at Universiti Teknologi PETRONAS for supporting this study.”

Please note that 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:

“The authors would like to give their heartfelt thanks to the Yayasan Universiti Teknologi PETRONAS (YUTP FRG Grant No: 015LC0-226) at Universiti Teknologi PETRONAS for supporting this study.”

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

5. Thank you for stating the following financial disclosure:

“The authors would like to give their heartfelt thanks to the Yayasan Universiti Teknologi PETRONAS (YUTP FRG Grant No: 015LC0-226) at Universiti Teknologi PETRONAS for supporting this study.”

Please state what role the funders took in the study.  If the funders had no role, please state: "The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript."

If this statement is not correct you must amend it as needed.

Please include this amended Role of Funder statement in your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf.

6. We note that Figure 1 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 Figure 1 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/#

7. 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 guidelines for more information: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/supporting-information

[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: 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: No

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 abstract needs a little bit more numerical result. Please add them.

Please explain why did you chose ANFIS among other models? Why did not you use ANN, SVM, etc?

Page 3, line 59: please use a uniform mode when reporting the numbers. Please correct “one hundred and 158 datasets”.

Considering the fact that your research only uses ANFIS, I suggest you to explain more about ANFIS including its steps and equations. Use following papers for that.

Azad, A., Farzin, S., Sanikhani, H., Karami, H., Kisi, O., & Singh, V. P. (2021). Approaches for optimizing the performance of adaptive neuro-fuzzy inference system and least-squares support vector machine in precipitation modeling. Journal of Hydrologic Engineering, 26(4), 04021010.

Azad, A., Manoochehri, M., Kashi, H., Farzin, S., Karami, H., Nourani, V., & Shiri, J. (2019). Comparative evaluation of intelligent algorithms to improve adaptive neuro-fuzzy inference system performance in precipitation modelling. Journal of hydrology, 571, 214-224.

Please change Table 3 to a casual table in terms of colour.

How did you select the setting parameters of ANFIS. For instance, what was the reason training epoch is 10?

I think figure 4 has been copied from another article. Please cite them and ask for their permission.

The novelty of this work is not clear enough yet. I mean, it should be cleared that how much ANFIS improved the modeling accuracy in comparison with other simpler models? Why we need to use ANFIS?

Results and discussion is satisfying.

We do not usually cite other papers in the Conclusion section. Please remove them and modify the conclusion accordingly.

Reviewer #2: Please give explanation why the developed ANFIS gave low or high values of reservoir bubble point pressure

when compared against the 22 studied models that follow the correct physical behavior.

**********

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

Reviewer #1:

The abstract needs a little bit more numerical result. Please add them.

Done, the numerical results were added to the abstract accordingly.

Please explain why did you choose ANFIS among other models? Why did not you use ANN, SVM, etc?

The ANFIS technique has the advantage of showing better results than other methods, which is why it is chosen in this study. The ANFIS offers a better learning ability. It can perform a highly nonlinear mapping. It has fewer adjustable parameters than those needed in other machine learning. Its structure can allow for parallel computation. Its networks show a well-structured knowledge representation and can also allow better integration with other control design methods [1]. ANFIS can combine ANN and Fl in a single tool to make the technique superb in reaching a quicker decision about the mapped relationship between the feature and target parameters [2]. The ANFIS benefits from decreased training time because of its smaller dimensions and because the network is initialized with parameters about the problem domain [3].

Page 3, line 59: please use a uniform mode when reporting the numbers. Please correct “one hundred and 158 datasets”.

Done, the numbers were corrected accordingly.

Considering the fact that your research only uses ANFIS, I suggest you to explain more about ANFIS, including its steps and equations. Use the following papers for that.

Azad, A., Farzin, S., Sanikhani, H., Karami, H., Kisi, O., & Singh, V. P. (2021). Approaches for optimizing the performance of adaptive neuro-fuzzy inference system and least-squares support vector machine in precipitation modeling. Journal of Hydrologic Engineering, 26(4), 04021010.

Azad, A., Manoochehri, M., Kashi, H., Farzin, S., Karami, H., Nourani, V., & Shiri, J. (2019). Comparative evaluation of intelligent algorithms to improve adaptive neuro-fuzzy inference system performance in precipitation modelling. Journal of Hydrology, 571, 214-224.

Done, more explanation about ANFIS, including its steps and equations, is added accordingly using the recommended papers. Please, you can see highlighted yellow color in subsection (2.2 Proposed ANFIS model strategy).

Please change Table 3 to a casual table in terms of colour.

Done, the Table was changed to a casual table in terms of color accordingly.

How did you select the setting parameters of ANFIS? For instance, what was the reason the training epoch is 10?

The optimal hyper-parameters of ANFIS were selected by using the manual method. In the manual way, each parameter changed in its different types or values. Then, the model accuracy and the correct trend analysis were checked. Finally, the optimal hyper-parameters were selected with the appropriate trend analysis for the highest accuracy, as shown in Table 3. The statement is added in subsection 2.2 Proposed ANFIS model strategy accordingly.

I think figure 4 has been copied from another article. Please cite them and ask for their permission.

Figure 4 was generated from MATLAB R2019b; it is mentioned accordingly.

The novelty of this work is not clear enough yet. It should be clear how much ANFIS improved the modelling accuracy compared to cleared and how much ANFIS improved the modeling accuracy compared to the other simpler models?

The novelty of this study is to apply the ANFIS model with the trend analysis. The trend analysis study shows that the model follows the correct relationships between the inputs and output to prove the proper physical behavior. In addition, the ANFIS model is higher accuracy than all studied models. Please, see the added statement in the abstract accordingly. The second rank model that is the best in the previous models has R, AAPRE, APRE, SD, and RMSE of 0.9724, 9%, -1.58%, 0.095 psi, and 13.04 psi, respectively. However, the proposed ANFIS model has the highest R of 0.994 and the lowest AAPRE, APRE, SD, and RMSE of 6.38%, -0.99%, 0.074 psi, and 9.73 psi, respectively, as the first rank model. These values are added in the abstract accordingly.

Why we need to use ANFIS?

It is the first time to use the ANFIS model with the trend analysis to determine the Pb because the ANFIS shows better results as discussed in the advantages of the ANFIS in the subsection (2.2 Proposed ANFIS model strategy). In addition, the trend analysis is used to validate the ANFIS model to follow the correct relationships between the inputs and output to prove the proper physical behavior or to show the effects of the inputs on the output.

Results and discussion are satisfying.

Thank you a lot.

We do not usually cite other papers in the Conclusion section. Please remove them and modify the conclusion accordingly.

Done, the conclusion was modified accordingly.

References

[1] R. Isanta Navarro, “Study of a neural network-based system for stability augmentation of an airplane,” 2013.

[2] P. Tahmasebi and A. Hezarkhani, “A hybrid neural networks-fuzzy logic-genetic algorithm for grade estimation,” Comput. Geosci., vol. 42, pp. 18–27, 2012.

[3] L. P. Maguire, B. Roche, T. M. McGinnity, and L. J. McDaid, “Predicting a chaotic time series using a fuzzy neural network,” Inf. Sci. (NY)., vol. 112, no. 1–4, pp. 125–136, 1998.

Reviewer #2:

Please give explanation why the developed ANFIS gave low or high values of reservoir bubble point pressure when compared against the 22 studied models that follow the correct physical behavior.

The ANFIS model shows better results than other models because of combining the FL and ANN performances and better learning ability. The ANFIS can perform a highly non-linear mapping. These statements are added to the conclusion accordingly. The other advantages of the ANFIS are added in the subsection (2.2 Proposed ANFIS model strategy).

Attachments
Attachment
Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx
Decision Letter - Ardashir Mohammadzadeh, Editor

A reservoir bubble point pressure prediction model using the Adaptive Neuro-Fuzzy Inference System (ANFIS) technique with trend analysis

PONE-D-22-03484R1

Dear Dr. Alakbari,

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,

Ardashir Mohammadzadeh, Phd

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #1: 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

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

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

Reviewer #1: I think the authors addressed my concerns carefully and the manuscript is ready to be published now.

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

**********

Formally Accepted
Acceptance Letter - Ardashir Mohammadzadeh, Editor

PONE-D-22-03484R1

A reservoir bubble point pressure prediction model using the Adaptive Neuro-Fuzzy Inference System (ANFIS) technique with trend analysis

Dear Dr. Alakbari:

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. Ardashir Mohammadzadeh

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 .