Peer Review History

Original SubmissionOctober 24, 2023
Decision Letter - Waqas Saleem, Editor

PONE-D-23-34868Study of Real-time Parameter Measurement of Ring Rolling Pieces Based on Machine VisionPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Fu,

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 Feb 23 2024 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,

Waqas Saleem, 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. Note from Emily Chenette, Editor in Chief of PLOS ONE, and Iain Hrynaszkiewicz, Director of Open Research Solutions at PLOS: Did you know that depositing data in a repository is associated with up to a 25% citation advantage (https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0230416)? If you’ve not already done so, consider depositing your raw data in a repository to ensure your work is read, appreciated and cited by the largest possible audience. You’ll also earn an Accessible Data icon on your published paper if you deposit your data in any participating repository (https://plos.org/open-science/open-data/#accessible-data).

4. We note that the grant information you provided in the ‘Funding Information’ and ‘Financial Disclosure’ sections do not match. 

When you resubmit, please ensure that you provide the correct grant numbers for the awards you received for your study in the ‘Funding Information’ section.

5. We note that your Data Availability Statement is currently as follows: [All relevant data are within the manuscript and its Supporting Information files.]

Please confirm at this time whether or not your submission contains all raw data required to replicate the results of your study. Authors must share the “minimal data set” for their submission. PLOS defines the minimal data set to consist of the data required to replicate all study findings reported in the article, as well as related metadata and methods (https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-minimal-data-set-definition).

For example, authors should submit the following data:

- The values behind the means, standard deviations and other measures reported;

- The values used to build graphs;

- The points extracted from images for analysis.

Authors do not need to submit their entire data set if only a portion of the data was used in the reported study.

If your submission does not contain these data, please either upload them as Supporting Information files or deposit them to a stable, public repository and provide us with the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers. For a list of recommended repositories, please see https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/recommended-repositories.

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. If data are owned by a third party, please indicate how others may request data access.

6. 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

7. Please clarify the number of Figures uploaded in your manuscript and PDF file. 

8. Please include a copy of Table 6 which you refer to in your text on page 23.

9. 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.

[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

**********

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

Reviewer #1: No

**********

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

**********

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

**********

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: Reviewer comments to authors:

1. The introduction section should be enhanced by incorporating insights from prior research, and it would benefit from the inclusion of recent citations pertaining to ring measurements. You need to look for and add related citation as DOI below” https://doi.org/10.1016/j.measurement.2022.111072, https://doi.org/10.1007/s00170-022-10359-0, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11740-023-01232-4, https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0292814, https://doi.org/10.3390/app11062601, https://doi.org/10.3390/s23177443, “

2. In the methodology section:

a. Can you provide more comprehensive details about the instruments and devices utilized for ring measurements in the methodology section?

b. How would including information about the measurement equipment's accuracy and calibration procedures contribute to strengthening the overall robustness of the study?

c. Could you offer clarification on the sample size and variability in the experiments to ensure a clearer understanding of the research parameters?

d. In what ways can you elaborate on the data collection process, including the frequency of measurements and the specific conditions under which they were conducted?

3. It is necessary to verify the formatting of the references and the spacing between sentences and references. Such as “measurement[16] line 60, 74 , and Lizhou[17] line 79”.

4. Some typos need to change “information(Fig 5) line 206”.

5. It is necessary to discuss how the algorithms and pre-processing steps selected affect the overall quality of the results. How do these steps help to improve measurement accuracy or expand the system's capabilities? This link should be highlighted explicitly.

6. Consider discussing the performance of various algorithms, if applicable. Is it possible to find algorithms that outperform others in specific scenarios? Exploring these comparative aspects can provide insights into the decision-making process for algorithm selection.

7. Recommend potential future research directions, such as investigating the method's extension to address challenges associated with various types of metrology measurements or exploring how it interacts with modern manufacturing systems.

8. The manuscript needs to be proofread to be more suitable for publishing.

**********

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: Yes: Yazid Saif

**********

[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: Reviewer Comments to authors.docx
Revision 1

Response to Reviewers

Dear Editors and Reviewers:

Thank you for your letter and for the reviewer(s)’ comments concerning our manuscript entitled “Study of Real-time Parameter Measurement of Ring Rolling Pieces Based on Machine Vision” (Manuscript ID PONE-D-23-34868). Those comments are all valuable and helpful for revising and improving our paper. We have studied comments carefully and have made correction which we hope to meet with approval. Revised parts are marked in red in the paper. The main corrections in the paper and the responses to the reviewers are as follows:

1. Response to comment: (The introduction section should be enhanced by incorporating insights from prior research, and it would benefit from the inclusion of recent citations pertaining to ring measurements.)

Response: Thank you for your advice. In the introduction, we add the research of Zheng Lu, Yu-cun Zhang, Bangguo Wang, Xianbin Fu, Yazid Saif and others on the measurement of ring parts, and add relevant citations.

2. In the methodology section:

a. Response to comment: (Can you provide more comprehensive details about the instruments and devices utilized for ring measurements in the methodology section?)

Response: Thank you very much. We have included a detailed description of the mechanical structure in "2.2 Mechanical structure design ", which explains the function of each module. In "4.1 Experimental platform construction", the hardware and equipment parameters required by the experiment platform are comprehensively introduced.

b. Response to comment: (How would including information about the measurement equipment's accuracy and calibration procedures contribute to strengthening the overall robustness of the study?)

Response: Thank you for your valuable advice. We have added the section "3.2 Camera calibration" to the text. Camera calibration is an important form of calibration procedure to ensure the accuracy and reliability of the measurement system. The process and result of camera calibration are also given.

c. Response to comment: (Could you offer clarification on the sample size and variability in the experiments to ensure a clearer understanding of the research parameters?)

Response: Thank you for your comments on our articles. According to your suggestion, we explained the reason for selecting the test ring in the measurement experiment, and carried out several measurements on the sample. The validity and stability of the experiment are verified by comparative analysis of the different conditions that affect the measurement results.

d. Response to comment: (In what ways can you elaborate on the data collection process, including the frequency of measurements and the specific conditions under which they were conducted?)

Response: Thank you for your advice. We have added detailed information about the vision equipment, including the measurement frequency and conditions, to the experimental platform construction.

3. Response to comment: (It is necessary to verify the formatting of the references and the spacing between sentences and references. Such as “measurement[16] line 60, 74 , and Lizhou[17] line 79”.)

Response: Thanks for your careful reading, we have verified the format of the references and cited them in the "PLoS" style using EndNote X9.

4. Response to comment: (Some typos need to change “information(Fig 5) line 206”.)

Response: Sorry, we have revised the article and corrected the part with mistakes.

5. Response to comment: (It is necessary to discuss how the algorithms and pre-processing steps selected affect the overall quality of the results. How do these steps help to improve measurement accuracy or expand the system's capabilities? This link should be highlighted explicitly.)

Response: Thank you very much for your advice. We added the result graph without image preprocessing in the "3.1 Image Preprocessing" section, and discussed the influence of no preprocessing steps on the measurement results. At the same time, literature [23] was added to further prove the importance of pre-treatment steps.

6. Response to comment: (Consider discussing the performance of various algorithms, if applicable. Is it possible to find algorithms that outperform others in specific scenarios? Exploring these comparative aspects can provide insights into the decision-making process for algorithm selection.)

Response: Thank you for your advice. We added the comparison of key algorithms in "3.1 Image Preprocessing", showed the comparison result graph, and expounded the basis of algorithm decision-making.

7. Response to comment: (Recommend potential future research directions, such as investigating the method's extension to address challenges associated with various types of metrology measurements or exploring how it interacts with modern manufacturing systems.)

Response: Thank you for your helpful advice. We have added a vision for the future at the end of the "5 Conclusions" section.

8. Response to comment: (The manuscript needs to be proofread to be more suitable for publishing.)

Response: Thank you for your advice. We have proofread the article and made changes to the relevant positions.

Thank you again for your positive comments and valuable suggestions to improve the quality of our manuscript.

Sincerely yours.

Wish you all the best!

Sincerely yours,

Xiaoge Fu, Han Li, Zhijiang Zuo, and Libo Pan

Attachments
Attachment
Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx
Decision Letter - Waqas Saleem, Editor

Study of Real-time Parameter Measurement of Ring Rolling Pieces Based on Machine Vision

PONE-D-23-34868R1

Dear Dr. Fu,

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,

Waqas Saleem, Ph.D

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Formally Accepted
Acceptance Letter - Waqas Saleem, Editor

PONE-D-23-34868R1

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Fu,

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now being handed over to our production team.

At this stage, our production department will prepare your paper for publication. This includes ensuring the following:

* All references, tables, and figures are properly cited

* All relevant supporting information is included in the manuscript submission,

* There are no issues that prevent the paper from being properly typeset

If revisions are needed, the production department will contact you directly to resolve them. If no revisions are needed, you will receive an email when the publication date has been set. At this time, we do not offer pre-publication proofs to authors during production of the accepted work. Please keep in mind that we are working through a large volume of accepted articles, so please give us a few weeks to review your paper and let you know the next and final steps.

Lastly, 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 customercare@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. Waqas Saleem

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 .