PONE-D-23-41552Spatio-temporal characterization of seismic sequence parameters and forecasting of strong aftershocks in Xinjiang based on the ETAS modelPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Hu,

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 19 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,

Dr. S. M. Anas, Ph.D.(Structural Engg.), M.Tech(Earthquake Engg.)

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. Thank you for stating the following financial disclosure: 

   "This study was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (11961065, 42164002) , The Ministry of Education of Humanities and Social Science project ( 19YJA910007) , and  the Natural Science Foundation of Xinjiang (2023D01C01)."

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.

3. We note that Figures 1 and 3 in your submission contain map/satellite images which may be copyrighted. All PLOS content is published under the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY 4.0), which means that the manuscript, images, and Supporting Information files will be freely available online, and any third party is permitted to access, download, copy, distribute, and use these materials in any way, even commercially, with proper attribution. For these reasons, we cannot publish previously copyrighted maps or satellite images created using proprietary data, such as Google software (Google Maps, Street View, and Earth). For more information, see our copyright guidelines: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/licenses-and-copyright.

We require you to either (a) present written permission from the copyright holder to publish these figures specifically under the CC BY 4.0 license, or (b) remove the figures from your submission:

a. You may seek permission from the original copyright holder of Figures 1 and 3 to publish the content specifically under the CC BY 4.0 license.  

We recommend that you contact the original copyright holder with the Content Permission Form (http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=7c09/content-permission-form.pdf) and the following text:

“I request permission for the open-access journal PLOS ONE to publish XXX under the Creative Commons Attribution License (CCAL) CC BY 4.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). Please be aware that this license allows unrestricted use and distribution, even commercially, by third parties. Please reply and provide explicit written permission to publish XXX under a CC BY license and complete the attached form.”

Please upload the completed Content Permission Form or other proof of granted permissions as an "Other" file with your submission.

In the figure caption of the copyrighted figure, please include the following text: “Reprinted from [ref] under a CC BY license, with permission from [name of publisher], original copyright [original copyright year].”

b. If you are unable to obtain permission from the original copyright holder to publish these figures under the CC BY 4.0 license or if the copyright holder’s requirements are incompatible with the CC BY 4.0 license, please either i) remove the figure or ii) supply a replacement figure that complies with the CC BY 4.0 license. Please check copyright information on all replacement figures and update the figure caption with source information. If applicable, please specify in the figure caption text when a figure is similar but not identical to the original image and is therefore for illustrative purposes only.

The following resources for replacing copyrighted map figures may be helpful:

USGS National Map Viewer (public domain): http://viewer.nationalmap.gov/viewer/

The Gateway to Astronaut Photography of Earth (public domain): http://eol.jsc.nasa.gov/sseop/clickmap/

Maps at the CIA (public domain): https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/index.html and https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/cia-maps-publications/index.html

NASA Earth Observatory (public domain): http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/

Landsat: http://landsat.visibleearth.nasa.gov/

USGS EROS (Earth Resources Observatory and Science (EROS) Center) (public domain): http://eros.usgs.gov/#

Natural Earth (public domain): http://www.naturalearthdata.com/

Additional Editor Comments:

Dear Authors,

I am writing to inform you about the outcome of the peer review process for your manuscript titled "Spatio-temporal characterization of seismic sequence parameters and forecasting of strong aftershocks in Xinjiang based on the ETAS model" [PONE-D-23-41552], submitted to PLOS ONE.

The manuscript underwent a thorough review process, and I am pleased to inform you that Reviewer 1 has recommended acceptance. However, Reviewer 2 has provided constructive feedback and recommended major revisions. Reviewer 2 highlighted the need for clarity in interpreting the computational results and emphasized the importance of addressing the various aspects. Furthermore, specific comments and suggestions have been provided to enhance various aspects of the manuscript. After a preliminary analysis of both reviewers' comments and considering the nature of the suggestions, I have decided to proceed with a "Major Revision" decision for your manuscript.

Important Note from the Academic Editor, Dr. S. M. Anas:

I would like to draw your attention to the fact that citing the papers recommended by the reviewers is not obligatory for your revised manuscript. The decision of whether or not to incorporate the suggested papers into your revised version rests entirely with you. While the reviewers have proposed these citations to improve the quality and credibility of your research, the ultimate choice is yours. You are free to opt not to include any of the suggested papers in your revised manuscript if you believe they are not pertinent or do not contribute to the value of your study.

I kindly request you to carefully consider the reviewer’s comments during your revision. Once you have addressed these concerns, please submit the revised manuscript through the journal's online submission system.

Your revised manuscript will undergo a second round of review to ensure it meets the standards of PLOS ONE. Thank you for your understanding and cooperation. If you have any questions or require further clarification, please do not hesitate to contact me.

Best regards,

Dr. S. M. Anas

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

[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: 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: In this paper, the Integrated Nested Laplace Algorithm (INLA) is applied to the

Epidemic Type Aftershock Sequence (ETAS) model, and the parameters of the ETAS

model are obtained.

Revised version of paper has been improved and it could be accepted as it.

Reviewer #2: The paper deals with the application of ETAS model for revealing spatiotemporal characteristics. Although well elaborated the main message is missing: what is the interpretation of the resulted computations? The physics behind is missing and must be addressed in the revised version of the manuscript.

There are, additionally, certain points in the manuscript that need additional work and corrections. Specific comments are reported, which I hope will contribute to the improvement of its revised version.

GENERAL COMMENTS

1. It would be very convenient for our conversation here, if the lines were numbered

2. In many places throughout the text, some sentences are too long to clearly express and describe either the content or the scope of what is described to be done

3. A careful reading will improve grammar and syntax – it is necessary

4. Please, say earthquakes – why are seismic events, or simply events?

MAJOR COMMENTS

1. Page 12, 1st paragraph: The difference of parameters values among the sequences must be discussed and interpreted appropriately.

2. Page 13, 1st paragraph, 2nd line: “almost the same” are in all similar cases of the published results but there is extensive discussion on the differences as far as the time they occur and their magnitude. Please, discuss and interpret these differences.

SPECIFIC COMMENTS

1. Page 11, 2nd paragraph: “the form of tectonic movements” – do you mean the type of faulting? Or the deformation rates? Please be specific.

2. Page 11, 2nd paragraph: “ … the different types” – same as before. please, clarify what do you mean by “different types of seismic ruptures”

3. Page 11, 2nd paragraph: “ … we can observe … in alpha values” – You need to compare the a – values with the ones obtained in other regions worldwide

4. Page 11, 2nd paragraph: “ … in p values” – Could you interpret the p – values in connection with physical and mechanical characteristics of the activated area? There are plenty relevant publications on that aspect

5. Page 12, 2nd paragraph: “: Could you comment on that and provide interpretation?

6. Figure 6 caption: Say the occurrence year better than the magnitude alone

7. Page 13, 1st paragraph, 1st line: name the figure, give the figure number

8. Page 14, 3rd paragraph: “… credible intervals” – which are these intervals? Hrad to be shown in the graph. You need firstly to name the numbers and then to magnify the part where the values are almost all null.

9. Page 14, 3rd paragraph: “… of the strong aftershock” – when did they occur? How strong? How do you characterize then as “strong”?

10. Page 14, last paragraph: “… selection of the period …” – why July 2, 2023 specifically? You need to explain this choice.

11. Font size on the labels of Figure 7: Hard to be seen – please improve the figure

12. Last paragraph: Please, better erase the: “of the paper”

**********

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: Yes: Eleftheria Papadimitriou

**********

[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.

Spatio-temporal characterization of earthquake sequence parameters and forecasting of strong aftershocks in Xinjiang based on the ETAS model

PONE-D-23-41552R1

Dear Dr. Hu,

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 Editorial Manager® 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,

Dr. S. M. Anas, Ph.D.(Structural Engg.), M.Tech(Earthquake Engg.)

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Dear Corresponding Author and Co-Authors,

I hope this email finds you well. I am writing to inform you of the decision regarding the revised manuscript entitled "Spatio-temporal characterization of earthquake sequence parameters and forecasting of strong aftershocks in Xinjiang based on the ETAS model" [PONE-D-23-41552R1], which you submitted to PLOS ONE.

Initially, the revised manuscript was assigned to a previous reviewer who unfortunately declined the review invitation. Consequently, I invited a third reviewer to assess both your responses to the previous reviewers' comments and the revised manuscript. I am pleased to inform you that the third reviewer has expressed satisfaction with your responses and recommended the revised version for publication.

Upon reviewing the reviewers' recommendations and conducting a preliminary assessment of the manuscript myself, I have decided to accept the manuscript for publication in PLOS ONE, subject to the approval of the editorial board.

Please note that this decision is pending final approval from the editorial board. Once approved, you will receive further instructions regarding the publication process.

Once again, congratulations on this achievement, and thank you for choosing PLOS ONE as the venue for disseminating your research findings.

Should you have any questions or require further assistance, please do not hesitate to contact me.

Best regards,

Dr. S. M. Anas

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

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 #3: 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 #3: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #3: 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 #3: 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 #3: 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 #3: (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 #3: No

**********