PONE-D-23-24071Controlling the Counterintuitive Optical Repulsive Thrust of Nano Dimers with Counter Propagating Type Waves and Background MediumPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Chowdhury,

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 Oct 04 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,

Yuan-Fong Chou Chau

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. Please note that funding information should not appear in any 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.

4. Thank you for stating the following financial disclosure: 

   "Funding: M.R.C. Mahdy acknowledges the support of internal CTRGC grant 2021-22 and 2022-23 of North South University (Approved by the members of BOT), Bangladesh."

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.

5. We note that you have indicated that data from this study are available upon request. PLOS only allows data to be available upon request if there are legal or ethical restrictions on sharing data publicly. For more information on unacceptable data access restrictions, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-unacceptable-data-access-restrictions. 

In your revised cover letter, please address the following prompts:

a) If there are ethical or legal restrictions on sharing a de-identified data set, please explain them in detail (e.g., data contain potentially sensitive information, data are owned by a third-party organization, etc.) and who has imposed them (e.g., an ethics committee). Please also provide contact information for a data access committee, ethics committee, or other institutional body to which data requests may be sent.

b) If there are no restrictions, please upload the minimal anonymized data set necessary to replicate your study findings as either Supporting Information files or to a stable, public repository and provide us with the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers. For a list of acceptable repositories, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-recommended-repositories.

We will update your Data Availability statement on your behalf to reflect the information you provide.

6. 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: Partly

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Partly

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: I Don't Know

**********

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

Reviewer #3: No

**********

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

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

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: No

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

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

Reviewer #1: This manuscript introduces a new discovery in the realm of light-matter interaction: the manipulation of the counter-intuitive repulsive force within the proximity and distant regions of plasmonic-chiral heterodimers. This is achieved by subjecting them to linearly polarized counter-propagating plane waves. To influence and manage this repulsive force exerted on the dimers, the authors have explored two different contexts, homogeneous and heterogeneous backgrounds in our configurations.

While I find the content intriguing, I am unable to endorse its publication in its current state. The following points outline my concerns and questions:

1. While the concept and content of this manuscript are innovative, the manner in which it is presented makes it challenging to grasp the overarching structure. The document leans heavily towards a descriptive style, yet the logical flow poses difficulties for readers to follow. The authors may consider revising the article's structure to achieve a more organized and coherent presentation.

2. Following 1, it is advisable for the authors to emphasize the underlying physical mechanism or rationale behind this altered longitudinal OBF. Allocating a distinct section to elucidate this aspect could assist readers in concentrating on and comprehending it.

3. The authors should enhance the substantiation of their claim that "By increasing the refractive index of the lower medium, it is indeed possible to further enhance the repulsive thrust for the setups shown in Fig. 8(a) and (h)," as pointed out in line 621.

4. Despite the authors' inclusion of a 15-degree incident angle in both Fig. 2 and Fig. 8, there are discrepancies apparent in the schematic where certain angles do not conform to 15-degree. It is recommended that the authors address and rectify this inconsistency."

5. What is the reason behind having four legends in Fig. 4(b) when only two curves are actually shown?

6. The x-axis unit in Fig. 4(b) is labeled incorrectly.

7. There are some symbols typo such as “k” on line 237 should be “\\kappa” and $\\bar{P}$ in line 416 should be $\\bar{p}$.

8. There are grammatical errors in many sentences, such as "In differentiate, it shows up that the wave nature of light is playing a crucial part for the light-matter interaction of our proposed setup."

9. Enhancement of the resolution quality in Fig. 8 is recommended, as the current presentation lacks clarity in showcasing finer details.

10. The authors should consider revising their use of abbreviations to avoid repetition. For instance, on page 2, the authors already introduce the abbreviation "OBF" for "optical binding force" on line 97. However, on line 226, instead of utilizing the established abbreviation "OBF," they continue to abbreviate "optical binding force" again.

Reviewer #2: This paper provides a method to control the repulsion and attraction behavior of

nanoparticles using a “modified” longitudinal optical binding force. It demonstrates that the

broadband, especially in higher wavelength regions, repulsive binding force can be achieved

using counterpropagating waves in heterogeneous background, due to the linear increase of

momentum of the emitted photons, while it is not achievable in homogeneous background.

The theoretical and numerical analysis show corresponding results which support the authors

claim. The paper is recommended for publication upon satisfactorily answering the following

questions.

1. What is the relation between the optical binding force and the electric polarity and

magnetic rotation? At the moment, the repulsive behavior seem to be related to the

similarity between the induced electric polarity and magnetic rotation in chiral and

plasmonic particles. Is it possible to generate optical binding forces using the set-up in

Figs. 1(a) and (b) using plasmonic-chiral dimers? It is important to show that there is

actually conventional optical binding force here and then controlling the repulsive thrust

can be discussed. The current observation seems to suggest the repulsive behavior comes

from particle-particle interaction instead of light-particle interaction.

2. Although it has mentioned several times in the manuscript, it is not clear to the reviewer

why in homogeneous case wave nature of light plays a vital role, but in heterogeneous

case the particle nature plays a vital role. There lacks discussion which points out explicitly

the feature or behavior that relates to wave and particle nature, respectively, based on

observations.

3. Basically, the authors have not explained why the car-person interaction is analogy to the

light-particle interaction in Fig. 1. When persons move away from each other, they must

push the car back as shown in the figures, but when particles move away, the waves cannot

be pushed back. I don't see this as an appropriate analogy.

4. It is highly suggested that the authors summarize and itemize the “modification” in the

so called “modified” optical binding force.

Other minor points:

1. Fig. 4(b) misses the other two curves although they are listed in the legend. It is suggested

to use different line types or markers to plot the curves such that the overlapped data can

still be seen from the figure.

2. It is suggested to mark the plasmonic and chiral particle in Fig. 5.

3. It is suggested to substitute all the line plots in Fig. 8 with higher resolution figures with

readable values on the axes.

Reviewer #3: The manuscript prepared by SUDIPTA BISWAS et al. reported a repulsive force between plasmonic and chiral particles in both near and far field regions when counter-propagating plane waves are illuminated to the particles. But, in my opinion, the manuscript is not mature, so it is not easy to read and understand. The structure of the text is not well organized and scattered for me. The Introduction is too long. I do not feel the need to use the analog of two cars and two persons. Authors repeat the same things multiple times. More critically as a scientific report, some simulation details and results are not fully mentioned and/or explained in the text, for example, Figure 3b, 3c, and Figure 5. Especially Figure 3b, OBF is repulsive even though a single propagating wave is irradiated on the plasmonic-chiral heterodimer, which seems not consistent with author’s claim in this contribution. The discussion regarding to the wave and particle natures of light for the counterintuitive repulsive force (more specifically about so-called three catalysts) is not well examined in the manuscript. Thus, I do not recommend the manuscript to be published in the PLOS One. I strongly suggest the authors consider resubmitting after a basic rearrangement of the manuscript and get proofreading.

**********

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

Reviewer #3: 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: PONE-D23-24071_review.pdf

Controlling the Counterintuitive Optical Repulsive Thrust of Nano Dimers with Counter Propagating Type Waves and Background Medium

PONE-D-23-24071R1

Dear Dr. Chowdhury,

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,

Yuan-Fong Chou Chau

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

The paper is well revised and may be accepted 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: (No Response)

**********

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

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

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

Reviewer #1: No

**********