PONE-D-22-29121Coupling radiative, conductive and convective heat-transfers in a single Monte Carlo algorithm: a general theoretical framework for linear situations.PLOS ONE

Dear Stéphane Blanco

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.

==============================

Reviewer 1's comments

The authors developed single Monte-Carlo algorithm for radiation, conduction and convection process. The authors used the theoretical frame works of propagators and Green's functions which demonstrate that a coupled model involving different physical phenomena can be probabilized. They extended the Feynman-Kac theory and stochastic processes. They addressed that the coupled Brownian trajectories compatible with the algorithmic design required by ray-tracing acceleration techniques in highly refined geometry.

The following amendments are required for this manuscript.

Introduction should be expand. The authors listed references [7-15]. It is better to explain these works in concise manner in the introduction.

Eq. (1) is derived from Equation (64)? How is it possible?

Abbreviations should also be included in the nomenclature.

The conclusion section should be added in the manuscript.

Reviewer 2's comments:

The authors combine the radiation, convection, and conduction phenomenon using the single Monte Carlo algorithm. The algorithm would be beneficial for the complex geometries from computer graphics and its advances. The theoretical formulation has been presented and different thermal paths have been made on which heat is transferred. They probabilized Green’s function and propagators using a theoretical framework. Then they extended the model to make it operational by using the Feynman-Kac theory and stochastic processes. They presented Brownian trajectories and make them compatible with the algorithmic design required by the ray-tracing acceleration technique for highly refined geometries.

Following are my suggestion for this manuscript:

1. In different section of the article, the flow chart the sample computer code is written. I think there is a need of a complete flow chart that describe the algorthim start and end points by highlighting the coupling spotlights. The flow chart can also describe fluid and solid domains for heating pathways.
2. I think there should be a portion that describe that why this type of coupling is required for a physical phenomenon and what kind of target audience would be beneficial.
3. The introduction section is very brief also not including the work of other people. How the people have worked previously. How thery tried to couple this type of models. Research gap needs to be highlighted.
4. The randomized sampling method should be explain more with kind of error analysis. So the path for next step should be determined correctly. The stepping method and size for the path needs more mathematical explanation.
5. In figure 7b, the radiative path is making a triangle, is there a specific reason for the twist or sampling method is changing it? More explanation is required for changing path.
6. Figure 7b can be made separately with an enlarge view.
7. Equation 57 is an average of quantities. Why is it so? The exactness of this relation can be highlighted mathematically.

==============================

Please submit your revised manuscript by Feburary 15, 2023. 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,

Rab Nawaz

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 work received financial support from the French National Agency for Research

(ANR project HIGH-TUNE ANR-16-CE01-0010, ANR project MC2 ANR-21-CE46-0013

and ANR project MCG-RAD ANR-18-CE46-0012) and from Region Occitanie (Projet CLE EDSTAR). This work has also been sponsored by the French government research program ”Investissements d’Avenir” through the IDEX-ISITE initiative 16-IDEX-0001 (CAP 20-25), the IMobS3 Laboratory of Excellence (ANR-10-LABX-16-01) and the SOLSTICE laboratory of Excellence (ANR-10-LABX-22-01)"

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 work received financial support from the French National Agency for Research, https://anr.fr/, (ANR project HIGH-TUNE ANR-16-CE01-0010, ANR project MC2 ANR-21-CE46-0013 and ANR project MCG-RAD ANR-18-CE46-0012), from Region Occitanie (Projet CLE EDSTAR), from French government research program "Investissements d'Avenir" through the IDEX-ISITE initiative 16-IDEX-0001 (CAP 20-25), the IMobS3 Laboratory of Excellence (ANR-10-LABX-16-01) and the SOLSTICE laboratory of Excellence (ANR-10-LABX-22-01)."

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

4. "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."

Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice.

Additional Editor Comments (if provided):

[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 authors developed single Monte-Carlo algorithm for radiation, conduction and convection process. The authors used the theoretical frame works of propagators and Green's functions which demonstrate that a coupled model involving different physical phenomena can be probabilized. They extended the Feynman-Kac theory and stochastic processes. They addressed that the coupled Brownian trajectories compatible with the algorithmic design required by ray-tracing acceleration techniques in highly refined geometry.

The following amendments are required for this manuscript.

Introduction should be expand. The authors listed references [7-15]. It is better to explain these works in concise manner in the introduction.

Eq. (1) is derived from Equation (64)? How is it possible?

Abbreviations should also be included in the nomenclature.

The conclusion section should be added in the manuscript.

Reviewer #2: 1) In different section of the article, the flow chart the sample computer code is written. I think there is a need of a complete flow chart that describe the algorthim start and end points by highlighting the coupling spotlights. The flow chart can also describe fluid and solid domains for heating pathways.

2) I think there should be a portion that describe that why this type of coupling is required for a physical phenomenon and what kind of target audience would be beneficial.

3) The introduction section is very brief also not including the work of other people. How the people have worked previously. How thery tried to couple this type of models. Research gap needs to be highlighted.

4) The randomized sampling method should be explain more with kind of error analysis. So the path for next step should be determined correctly. The stepping method and size for the path needs more mathematical explanation.

5) In figure 7b, the radiative path is making a triangle, is there a specific reason for the twist or sampling method is changing it? More explanation is required for changing path.

6) Figure 7b can be made separately with an enlarge view.

7) Equation 57 is an average of quantities. Why is it so? The exactness of this relation can be highlighted mathematically.

**********

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.

Attachments

Attachment

Submitted filename: PLOSONE Recommendation Report and Questions.docx

Coupling radiative, conductive and convective heat-transfers in a single Monte Carlo algorithm: a general theoretical framework for linear situations.

PONE-D-22-29121R1

Dear Dr. Stéphane Blanco,

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,

Rab Nawaz

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

The authors have responded positively to the queries raised by the expert reviewers. Thus, the research article deserves to be publihsed in Plos One. 

Reviewers' comments: