PONE-D-24-13688Unlocking the Future: A Groundbreaking Model for Mitigating Sustainable Cloud Computing Challenges through Empirical StudiesPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Ghani,

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 Jul 06 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,

Mohamed Rafik N. Qureshi, 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. You indicated that ethical approval was not necessary for your study. We understand that the framework for ethical oversight requirements for studies of this type may differ depending on the setting and we would appreciate some further clarification regarding your research. Could you please provide further details on why your study is exempt from the need for approval and confirmation from your institutional review board or research ethics committee (e.g., in the form of a letter or email correspondence) that ethics review was not necessary for this study? Please include a copy of the correspondence as an ""Other"" file.

3. Please provide additional details regarding participant consent. In the ethics statement in the Methods and online submission information, please ensure that you have specified (1) whether consent was informed and (2) what type you obtained (for instance, written or verbal, and if verbal, how it was documented and witnessed). If your study included minors, state whether you obtained consent from parents or guardians. If the need for consent was waived by the ethics committee, please include this information.

If you are reporting a retrospective study of medical records or archived samples, please ensure that you have discussed whether all data were fully anonymized before you accessed them and/or whether the IRB or ethics committee waived the requirement for informed consent. If patients provided informed written consent to have data from their medical records used in research, please include this information.

4. In the online submission form, you indicated that [The data is available on request.]. 

All PLOS journals now require all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript to be freely available to other researchers, either 1. In a public repository, 2. Within the manuscript itself, or 3. Uploaded as supplementary information.

This policy applies to all data except where public deposition would breach compliance with the protocol approved by your research ethics board. If your data cannot be made publicly available for ethical or legal reasons (e.g., public availability would compromise patient privacy), please explain your reasons on resubmission and your exemption request will be escalated for approval. 

Additional Editor Comments:

The manuscript entitled 'Unlocking the Future: A Groundbreaking Model for Mitigating Sustainable Cloud Computing Challenges through Empirical Studies' needs further modification as per reviewers' comments.

[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: Partly

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: 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

Reviewer #2: 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: 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: Unlocking the Future: A Groundbreaking Model for Mitigating Sustainable Cloud

Computing Challenges through Empirical Studies

This paper empirically investigates the ethical challenges and practices of cloud computing about sustainable development. They conducted a systematic literature review followed by a questionnaire survey and identified 11 sustainable cloud computing challenges (SCCCs) and 66 practices for addressing the identified challenges. Interpretive structural modeling (ISM) and Artificial Neural Networks (ANN) were then used to identify and analyze the interrelationship between the SUCCs. Then, based on the results of the ISM, 11 process areas were identified to develop the proposed sustainable cloud computing challenges mitigation model (SCCCMM). The SCCCMM includes four main categories: Requirements specification, QoS and SLA, Complexity and Cyber security, and Trust. The model was subsequently tested with a real-world case study that was connected to the environment. In a sustainable cloud computing organization, the results demonstrate that the proposed SCCCMM aids in estimating the level of mitigation. The participants in the case study also appreciated the suggested SCCCMM for its practicality, user-friendliness, and overall usefulness. When it comes to the sustainability of their software products, we believe that organizations involved in cloud computing can benefit from the suggested SCCCMM. Additionally, researchers and industry practitioners can expect the proposed model to provide a strong foundation for developing new sustainable methods and tools for cloud computing.

The following are comments/suggestions to improve the manuscript:

Define symbols and abbreviations on their first use. Eg QoS, SUCCs and SLA.

Please include recommendation for developers and policy makers from your study

There are many typos. Please find and correct.

Please write in passive speech. Avoid pronouns we, their, our, them etc

The literature review is not sufficient. Include the following papers on neural networks and nature inspired algorithms:

1. HUNTER: AI based holistic resource management for sustainable cloud computing, Journal of Systems and Software, Volume 184, 2022, 111124, ISSN 0164-1212, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jss.2021.111124.

2. Robust Tracking Control for Quadrotor UAV With External Disturbances and Uncertainties Using Neural Network Based MRAC, in IEEE Access, vol. 12, pp. 36183-36201, 2024, doi:10.1109/ACCESS.2024.3374894

3. Genetic Algorithm Tuned Super Twisting Sliding Mode Controller for Suspension of Maglev Train With Flexible Track, in IEEE Access, vol. 11, pp. 30955-30969, 2023, doi: 10.1109/ACCESS.2023.3262416.

Reviewer #2: Title of the paper: Unlocking the Future: A Groundbreaking Model for Mitigating Sustainable Cloud Computing Challenges through Empirical Studies

The paper provides empirical analysis to identify 11 sustainable cloud computing challenges (SCCCs) and 66 practices for addressing the identified challenges. Interpretive structural modeling (ISM) and Artificial Neural Networks (ANN) were used to identify and analyze the interrelationship between the SUCCs. Then, based on the results of the ISM, 11 process areas were identified to develop the proposed sustainable cloud computing challenges mitigation model (SCCCMM). The SCCCMM includes four main categories: Requirements specification, QoS and SLA, Complexity and Cyber security, and Trust. The model was subsequently tested with a real-world case study that was connected to the environment.

Comments:

1) Authors should justify the title through its novelty to justify the 'Groundbacking model'

2) Please refer to 'The participants in the case study also appreciated the suggested SCCCMM for its practicality, user-friendliness, and overall usefulness. how this conclusion was derived.

3) Snowball sampling is a no-probability technique consist sample bias and margin of error hence authors should justify its use in the present study.

4) Please refer to ‘We emailed experts and networked with them on sites like LinkedIn, Facebook, and Research Gate. From July to August 2023,’ contradicts snowballing.

5) MICMAC is used for classifying the variable/factor under study into four categories to draw interpretations from such variables. MICAMAC is not for detecting the challenges present or not in the given quadrant.

6) Please refer to "Figure 1: Research Methodology" What types of data were used for building ANN and ISM may be clarified. and How they were combined to provide SUCCMM

7) LOTEC (Lyapunov Optimization on Time and Energy Cost) may be Lyapunov Optimization on Time and Energy Cost ( LOTEC).

8) All responses were recorded using a 5-point Likert scale, authors may provide a questionnaire and data file.

9) Please refer to 'Survey data were analyzed in this study using frequency analysis [55]' analysed results like pilot testing, reliability, validity and other statistical results may also be included in the manuscript.

10) Please refer to 'Based on industry feedback, we created the SSIM as depicted in Table I.' Authors may provide more clarity on how the process of industry feedback was registered.

11) How the accuracy of the ANN model is ensured using limited data.

12) Authors may refer to the following references for ISM, MICAMC and its validation;

Qureshi, K.M., Mewada, B.G., Alghamdi, S.Y., Almakayeel, N., Mansour, M. and Qureshi, M.R.N., 2022. Exploring the lean implementation barriers in small and medium-sized enterprises using interpretive structure modeling and interpretive ranking process. Applied System Innovation, 5(4), p.84.

Qureshi, K.M., Mewada, B.G., Alghamdi, S.Y., Almakayeel, N., Qureshi, M.R.N. and Mansour, M., 2022. Accomplishing sustainability in manufacturing system for small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) through lean implementation. Sustainability, 14(15), p.9732.

Qureshi, M.N., Kumar, D. and Kumar, P., 2008. An integrated model to identify and classify the key criteria and their role in the assessment of 3PL services providers. Asia Pacific Journal of Marketing and Logistics, 20(2), pp.227-249.

Qureshi, M.N., Kumar, D. and Kumar, P., 2007. Modeling the logistics outsourcing relationship variables to enhance shippers' productivity and competitiveness in logistical supply chain. International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management, 56(8), pp.689-714.

Talib, F., Rahman, Z. and Qureshi, M.N., 2011. An interpretive structural modelling approach for modelling the practices of total quality management in service sector. International Journal of Modelling in Operations Management, 1(3), pp.223-250.

**********

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.

Attachments

Attachment

Submitted filename: review-cloud-computing.pdf

PONE-D-24-13688R1Unlocking the Future: A Groundbreaking Model for Mitigating Sustainable Cloud Computing Challenges through Empirical StudiesPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Ghani,

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 Aug 10 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,

Mohamed Rafik N. Qureshi, Ph.D.

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:

The manuscript entitled 'Unlocking the Future: A Groundbreaking Model for Mitigating Sustainable Cloud Computing Challenges through Empirical Studies' may further be modified as per the old and new comments from both reviewers.

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

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: (No Response)

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

**********

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: Partly

Reviewer #2: Partly

**********

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

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: 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

Reviewer #2: 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: No

Reviewer #2: 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: My concerns are not addressed yet.

The literatures are not sufficient and not updated in this revised version too

Reviewer #2: 1. The manuscript has several typos; hence, it needs careful reading. Professional English editing is recommended.

2. Please refer to the previous query, "Authors should justify the title through its novelty to justify the 'Groundbacking Model'." There are several papers published on the ISM-ANN methodology. The methodology used does not provide novelty; hence, the title should be suitably modified.

3. The title "Unlocking the Future: A Groundbreaking Model for Mitigating Sustainable Cloud Computing Challenges through Empirical Studies" may be modified as "An Empirical Study for Mitigating Sustainable Cloud Computing Challenges Using ISM-ANN." or on a similar line.

**********

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

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.

An Empirical Study for Mitigating Sustainable Cloud Computing Challenges Using ISM-ANN

PONE-D-24-13688R2

Dear Dr. Ghani,

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,

Mohamed Rafik N. Qureshi, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

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: (No Response)

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

**********

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

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: 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

Reviewer #2: 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

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author: Thanks for the hard work

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

Reviewer #2: No

**********