Peer Review History

Original SubmissionOctober 28, 2022
Decision Letter - Ronnason Chinram, Editor

PONE-D-22-29739MAXIMUM MATCHING WITH APPLICATION BY USING BIPOLAR FUZZY INCIDENCE GRAPHSPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Hussain,

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 Apr 06 2023 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,

Ronnason Chinram, 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: " ext-link-type="uri" xlink:type="simple">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_xcclfuvtxQ"

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.

Additional Editor Comments (if provided):

Your paper has been fully reviewed. Based upon my judgment and the reviewers comments, we inform you that your paper has received the major revision for the possible publication. Please see the comments of reviewers and kindly revise your paper and submit with the response letter at the earliest convenience.

[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: This is a nice research article. This paper should be accepted after a good revision.

Comments/Suggestions:

(1) Clearly describe the contributions in the Abstract section.

(2) An introduction should clearly highlight the motivation, problem statement, the objective of the paper, gap in the existing research and the novelty of the conducted research.

(3) English needs to be improved significantly.

(4) It would be great if you could improve the comparative analysis section.

(5) Expand literature review by citing related work. For example,

Graphs for the Analysis of Bipolar Fuzzy Information, Studies in Fuzziness and Soft Computing, Springer, DOI: 10.1007/978-981-15-8756-6, 401(2021).

(6) Change min by \\min , and max by \\max in the whole manuscript.

(7) Explain MMIBFIN problem in BBFIG more nicely.

Reviewer #2: This paper introduced a novel method to MAXIMUM MATCHING WITH APPLICATION BY USING BIPOLAR FUZZY

INCIDENCE GRAPHS.

1. COMMENT: ‘Abstract’ should be refined. There are some grammar mistakes and redundant expression which may lead to misunderstandings.

2. COMMENT: ‘Introduction’ and ‘Preliminaries’ should be shortened. Some of the contents can be merged.

3.: The example used in the paper is considered to illustrate the effectiveness of the proposed approach. However, the authors are suggested to conduct more experiments to show the effectiveness. In addition, more comparisons and analysis should be provided to prove the efficiency.

4. Please clearly describe the motivation of this paper in the Introduction Section of this paper.

5.Please clearly describe the contributions of this paper in the Abstract, the Introduction Section and the Conclusions Section of this paper.

6. Please add the following references regarding “Fuzzy graph” into the References Section of this paper and cite them in the Introduction Section of this paper:

“A Study of m−Polar Neutrosophic Graph with Applications”, Journal of Intelligent Fuzzy Systems, Journal of Intelligent Fuzzy Systems, vol. 38, no. 4, pp. 4809-4828, 2020

“A study on Regular Picture Fuzzy Graph with Applications in Communication Networks” Journal of Intelligent Fuzzy Systems,2020

**********

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

Response to Reviewer

Title: Applications of maximum matching by using bipolar fuzzy incidence graphs

Decision: Major Revision

Dear reviewers thank you for the encouragement and suggestions. We have revised manuscript carefully according to the given instructions. The below are the comments and reponses of both the reviewers.

Reviewer # 1: Comments/Suggestion and their responses.

Comment 1:Clearly describe the contributions in the abstract section.

Reply: Dear reviewer we are gratified to you for your beneficial comment. We have added our contributions in the abstract. It is in highlighted form in the abstract of revised manuscript.

Comment 2: An introduction should clearly highlight the motivation, problem statement, the objective of the paper, gap in the existing research and the novelty of the conducted research.

Reply: Thank you for your valuable suggestion. We have improved the introduction section by adding some related material and highlighted it in our revised manuscript. Now, we have added motivation, problem statement, the objective of the paper, gap in the existing research in our revised manuscript in the introductory section on page number 2 in second and third paragraphs. We have highlighted it in our revised manuscript.

Comment 3: English needs to be improved significantly.

Reply: We are very thankful to you for your valuable suggestion. We have read the whole article carefully and corrected the mistakes and grammatical errors. Also, we have proofread the manuscript thoroughly.

Comment 4: It would be great if you could improve the comparative analysis section.

Reply:Dear reviewer we have added improved comparative analysis section in the rervised manuscript.

Comment 5:Expand literature review by citing related work. For example,Graphs for the Analysis of Bipolar Fuzzy Information, Studies in Fuzziness and Soft Computing, Springer, DOI: 10.1007/978-981-15-8756-6, 401(2021).

Reply:Thank you for the suggestion. Now, we have added the above mentioned research work in the reference section at [14].

Comment 6: min by \\min, and max by \\max in the whole manuscript.

Reply: We have changed min by \\min and \\max in our revised manuscript.

Comment 7:Explain MMBFIN problem in BBFIG more nicely.

Reply:Thank you for the suggestion. Now, we have explained improved MMBFIN problem in BBFIG by discussing also on vertices and added more sections in section 4.

Reviewer 2: Comments/Suggestions and their responses.

Comment 1:Abstract should be refined. There are some grammar mistakes and

redundant expression which may lead to misunderstandings.

Reply: We are gratified to you for your beneficial comment. We have revised the abstract in our revised manuscript and corrected all grammar mistakes and removed the redundant expressions.

Comment 2: ‘Introduction’ and ‘Preliminaries’ should be shortened. Some of the contents can be merged.

Reply: Thank you for your valuable comment. We have shortened the introduction and preliminaries, with this some contenets are merged now.

Comment 3: The example used in the paper is considered to illustrate the effectiveness of the proposed approach. However, the authors are suggested to conduct more experiments to show the effectiveness. In addition, more comparisons and analysis should be provided to prove the efficiency.

Reply: Thank you for this suggestion. We have added more subsections in section 4 to illustrate the effectiveness of our proposed approach. Also we have provided more comparison and analysis to show our efficiency.

Comment 4: Please clearly describe the motivation of this paper in the Introduction Section of this paper.

Reply: Thank you for your valuable suggestion. We have improved the introduction section by adding some related material and highlighted it in our revised manuscript. Now, we have added motivation in our revised manuscript in the introductory section on page number 2 in second and third paragraphs. We have highlighted it in our revised manuscript.

Comment 5: Please clearly describe the contributions of this paper in the Abstract, the Introduction Section and the Conclusions Section of this paper.

Reply:We are gratified to you for your beneficial comment. We have added our contributions in the abstract, and also added motivation in our revised manuscript in the introductory section on page number 2 in second and third paragraphs. It is in highlighted form in the abstract and introduction section of revised manuscript.

Comment 6: Please add the following references regarding “Fuzzy graph” into the References Section of this paper and cite them in the Introduction Section of this paper.

“A Study of m−Polar Neutrosophic Graph with Applications”, Journal of Intelligent Fuzzy Systems, Journal of Intelligent Fuzzy Systems, vol. 38, no. 4,pp.4809-4828,2020

“A study on Regular Picture Fuzzy Graph with Applications in Communication Networks” Journal of Intelligent Fuzzy Systems,2020

Reply:Thank you for the suggestion. Now, we have added the above mentioned research work in the reference section at [20] and [21] and cited them in the introduction section.

Attachments
Attachment
Submitted filename: Response to Reviewer.docx
Decision Letter - Ronnason Chinram, Editor

Applications of maximum matching by using bipolar fuzzy incidence graphs

PONE-D-22-29739R1

Dear Dr. Hussain,

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,

Ronnason Chinram, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

The authors have revised the paper very carefully and addressed all the points very well, which were raised during the review process. This paper is more interesting. Hence I recommend accepting the paper for publication.

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: . Some characteristics of maximum matching 9

principal numbers in BF IG are explained which are helpful for solving the vertex and 10

incidence pair fuzzy maximization problems. Lastly, obtained maximum matching 11

principal numbers by using the matching concept to prove its applicability and 12

effectiveness for the applications in bipartite BF IG and also for the BF IG.

I accept the revised version.

**********

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 - Ronnason Chinram, Editor

PONE-D-22-29739R1

Applications of maximum matching by using bipolar fuzzy incidence graphs

Dear Dr. Hussain:

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. Ronnason Chinram

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 .