PONE-D-23-29071Assessment of Radio-Activation Using Spectroscopy in Medical Linear Accelerators and Implications for Radiation Hazard Mitigation and Equipment DecommissioningPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Choi,

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 Dec 20 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,

Mohamad Syazwan Mohd Sanusi

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. In your Methods section, please provide additional information regarding the permits you obtained for the work. Please ensure you have included the full name of the authority that approved the field site access and, if no permits were required, a brief statement explaining why.

3. Thank you for stating the following in the Acknowledgments Section of your manuscript: 

"This research was supported by the National Research Council of Science & Technology grant by the Korea government (Ministry of Science and ICT) (No.CAP22041-000) & National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF) grant funded by the Korean government (No. RS-2022-00144201) & the Nuclear Safety Research Program through the Korea Foundation of Nuclear Safety (KoFONS) using the financial resource granted by the Nuclear Safety and Security Commission (NSSC) of the Republic of Korea (No.2205013)."

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: 

"The author(s) received no specific funding for this work."

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.

Additional Editor Comments:

Title = not ok. It didn't reflect all the written tittle especially the "implication for rad.....". Please revise.

Abstract - Reader would like to know in first 3-4 lines the objectives, statement of problems or maybe the application that best suited this Zr-Bi-Mn-borate glass. No conclusion has been drawn in the abstract.

Abstract, line 5 - We chose nine medical linacs based on.......

Line 3 - TomoTheraphy? Or just tomotheraphy with small letter?

Line 5 - remove "Typically, 6, 10, and 15 MV energies are used during photon beam therapy using a linac for treatment"

Line 4 - 103 all in South Korea? Need rot spoecify.

Line 6-7 - Revise with full stop. Please consider active voice without the bracket.

Line 8-9 - Photon-induced radionuclides? Photon-induced activity phenomenon?

Line 11-12 - "that emits gamma rays" and exposes the worker/patiuent with unnecessary few hundred nGy/hr of gamma radiation dose? Need to elaborate the consequence of photon-induced activity phenomenon.

Line 36 -37 - Clarify your aims and objective of the work. the sentence "by assessing the activation phenomenon doest reflecting the work procedure of identifying photon-induced radionuclides and measuring gamma dose rates.

Line 77 - spectra were measured measured or analysed??

Methodology - please elaborate the HPGe detector calibration in details for both energy and efficiency calibration. It is inapproriate to use only one source of energy calibration from Co-60. If it6 is sufficient to use only Co-60 then explain why? Because of 2 gamma peak; 1.17 MeV and 1.3 MeV?

Dose rate measurement - please explain the type of survey meter? Scintillation detector NaI for gamma dose rate? Or gas-filled for alpha beta detection? Please provide the image of in-situ measurement. What its the distance of mesurem,mnet from sources?

Results and discusission - nuclide identification and dose rate need to be compared with other works. Please add a table and do more comparison.

Fig. 2 - not clear, please provide big scale and good resolution.

Linear accelerator no. - please change to no. of reference no alphabets.

Line 126 - 136 - please include "gamma" to indicate the gamma dose rate.

Fig.3 - provide big scale of figure.

Line 170 - how do you calculate the annual exposure dose? provide the Equation or appropriate dose conversion factor from any study or from Monte Carlo simulatio. From what distance? Is this annual effective dose?

Line 185 - 191 and Line 197 - 201 - redundant.Its has been elaborated in intro.

Line 210 - justify why it is needed to identify the usage history.......? Why?

Conclusion - please write a new conclusion to conclude. Don't summarise the whole work.

[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 author has provided a wonderful study about the radiation dose rate at the exit window. It would be interesting if the author has data set not only at the exit window but around the head of the gantry as well. Did they perform the survey meter only at the exit window or for the sorrounding gantry as well?.

Reviewer #2: The study is relevant because the standards for handling radioactive materials in Korea are unclear.

The proposed method will be potentially useful as a general basis for establishing standards for linac radioactivity assessment and safety management

**********

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: Anu Bhattarai

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.

PONE-D-23-29071R1Assessment of Radio-Activation Using Spectroscopy in Medical Linear AcceleratorsPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Choi,

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 Mar 09 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,

Mohamad Syazwan Mohd Sanusi

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

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:

Dear author,

Before we can accept the submitted article for publication in the journal, we would like to invite you to make minor revisions. Please find the following list of comments for your second revision:

Line 133: The FH 40 G-L energy detection range spans from 36 keV to 1.3 MeV. Technically, gamma emitters above 1.3 MeV, such as Sb, Mn, Br, Ni, etc., are not being measured. Therefore, the results of the measured gamma dose rates in Fig. 4 might be underestimated. Additionally, the author did not address the beta contribution. If beta is not considered in this work for occupational exposure, please highlight or make assumptions regarding why beta is considered negligible or low energy. Since the measurements were taken at 0 cm from the source, high-energy beta might contribute in FH 49 G-L, maybe? Furthermore, no other details are provided for the ESM 40 G-L (energy linearity, performance calibration, alpha-beta discriminator).

Table 3: Are the results for Canberra or Ortec? Please combine the table to present a comparison, as this work assesses qualitative rather than quantitative aspects.

TABLE 4: Instead of marking "D" in the table, provide the true detected energies. The title of the table must start with a lowercase letter.

Unit of uSv/h: Please revise. Do not use italics. Use Times New Roman. Additionally, the R^2 should be in italics.

Line 229-231: Please do not write linear equations and text in the body of the article. Use symbols 'X' and '='. Do not italicize the text. How do you consider 8 hours of exposure? Please justify, and if there is solid evidence of workers sitting close to the gantry head, provide references or any reports.

Text style: Use "Justify." Maintain the same font size. Ensure that affiliations are presented in the same size.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

[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.

Assessment of Radio-Activation Using Spectroscopy in Medical Linear Accelerators

PONE-D-23-29071R2

Dear Dr. Choi,

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 will be generated when your article is formally accepted. Please note, if your institution has a publishing partnership with PLOS and your article meets the relevant criteria, all or part of your publication costs will be covered. Please make sure your user information is up-to-date by logging into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and clicking the ‘Update My Information' link at the top of the page. If you have any questions relating to publication charges, 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,

Mohamad Syazwan Mohd Sanusi

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments: