Research on assessment method of maximum distributed generation hosting capacity in distribution system with high shares of renewables and power electronics

Dai Wan; Kailun Fan; Jingyu He; Haochong Zhang; Gexing Yang; Xujin Duan

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0313164

Peer Review History

Original SubmissionJanuary 15, 2024
8 Feb 2024 Decision Letter - Jianguo Wang, Editor PONE-D-24-01853Research on Assessment Method of Maximum Carrying Capacity of Distributed Generation in Distribution System With High Shares of Renewables and Power ElectronicsPLOS ONE Dear Dr. He, 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. ============================== ACADEMIC EDITOR: Be sure to: I just received the comments from one reviewer. Please carefully address the comments and improve the quality of the manuscipt in both English and presentations. Please clearly highlight the novelty of this manuscript. ============================== Please submit your revised manuscript by Mar 24 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, Jianguo Wang, PhD 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. 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. [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 ******** 2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: 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 ****** 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 ****** 5. Review Comments to the Author Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters) Reviewer #1: This paper considers the improvement of DG carrying capacity by distributed flexible resources and proposes an accurate assessment method for the maximum carrying capacity of a DG. The effectiveness of the method is verified through simulation. The problem addressed is interesting, however, this paper needs some necessary revisions, and the comments are as follows: 1、It is necessary to read the full text carefully and check carefully to avoid low-level grammatical errors and improper words and phrases. For example, there is a problem with incomplete display of image labels in line 393. 2、In this paper, the linear simplified evaluation model of maximum carrying capacity is developed as a point of contribution, what is the difference between him and other assessment models in the literature, please add the explanation. 3、In the subsection ''Improved comprehensive sensitivity index'', the rationale for the improved comprehensive sensitivity index is not clear enough, and it is recommended that further additional clarification be provided. 4、How can the validity of the DG maximum load carrying capacity simulation results be determined, and is the methodology used in this paper different from the results obtained by other literature methods? 5、In the subsection ''Comparison of different sensitivity indexes'', the traditional sensitivity indexes are briefly described to give the reader a basic understanding. ****** 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: Leijiao Ge ******** [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. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0313164.r001
Revision 1
13 Apr 2024 Author Response Thank you for your positive comments and valuable suggestions to improve the quality of our manuscript. As per your request, we have attached our relevant data(Relevant data.xlsx) and tex file(other.tex). Based on your valuable input, we have extensively revised our manuscript. Modifications have been highlighted in yellow in the "revised manuscript with track changes". Please refer to the detailed point-by-point responses in "Response to Reviewers.pdf". 1、It is necessary to read the full text carefully and check carefully to avoid low-level grammatical errors and improper words and phrases. For example, there is a problem with incomplete display of image labels in line 393. Thanks for your suggestion. We have check the full text carefully and tried our best to polish the language in the revised manuscript. These changes will not influence the content and framework of the paper, so we did not list the changes. In addition, the incomplete display of image labels has been corrected. (page 14, line 423) 2、In this paper, the linear simplified evaluation model of maximum carrying capacity is developed as a point of contribution, what is the difference between him and other assessment models in the literature, please add the explanation. Thank you for your suggestion. We would like to provide a detailed explanation of the issues concerning the linear simplification evaluation model. The maximum DG hosting capacity assessment method proposed in this paper consists of two parts: firstly, the linear optimization model that can quickly calculate the preliminary maximum DG hosting capacity. This model is based on optimal power flow, which is the same as other assessment models in the literature; secondly, the correction of preliminary assessment results based on recursive method, which allows us to obtain more accurate evaluation results. So the contribution of our paper is to propose a integrated assessment method that combines linear optimization method and recursive method as shown in Figure 1. We apologize for not expressing it clearly. The main modifications are as follows (page 2, line 57-66). Other modifications have been highlighted in yellow in the "revised manuscript with track changes". The contributions of this paper are summarized as follows: (1)An integrated assessment method for maximum DG hosting capacity is proposed that combines the linear optimization method and the recursive method. It can realize fast and accurate calculation of maximum DG hosting capacity in the distribution network. (2)An improved comprehensive sensitivity index is proposed, which can accurately find the most suitable DG connection node for power correction during the recursive process. (3) A safety constraint verification method based on safety region is proposed, which can realize rapid safety verification calculations and improve the calculation efficiency of recursive algorithm. 3、In the subsection ''Improved comprehensive sensitivity index'', the rationale for the improved comprehensive sensitivity index is not clear enough, and it is recommended that further additional clarification be provided. Thank you for your suggestion. We have supplemented the rationale for the improved comprehensive sensitivity index. Please refer to the modifications on pages 8-9, lines 232-248. 4、How can the validity of the DG maximum load carrying capacity simulation results be determined, and is the methodology used in this paper different from the results obtained by other literature methods? (1)The validity of the simulation results for the maximum DG hosting capacity is determined by the following two aspects: A. Safety verification of simulation results Adjust the DG output power according to the simulation results presented in this paper. The state variables of the distribution network are shown in "Response to Reviewers.pdf". It can be observed from Fig 2 and Fig 3 in "Response to Reviewers.pdf" that the distribution network state variables are all within the safety constraints, proving the safety of the simulation results. B. Accuracy verification of the simulation results Comparison is made between the integrated assessment method and the linear optimization method commonly used in other literature. The DG output power is adjusted according to the simulation results of the two methods, respectively, and the state variables of the distribution network are calculated. DV and DS are then used to evaluate the distance between the operating state and the safety boundary of the distribution network. The smaller the values of DV and DS, the closer the operating state of the distribution network is to the safety boundary, indicating higher accuracy in the assessment results. It can be observed from Fig 4 to Fig 7 in "Response to Reviewers.pdf" that the simulation results of the proposed method in this paper have lower values of DV and DS, indicating higher accuracy of the assessment method proposed in this paper. This also validates the effectiveness of the DG maximum load hosting capacity simulation results. (2)The difference between the methodology used in this paper and the results obtained by other literature method The literature [7] adopts an iterative calculation method with increasing customer penetration, conducting DG hosting analysis by gradually raising the customer penetration rate. However, this method did not consider the operational characteristics of each node. The literature [8] applied Monte Carlo simulation method to evaluate the maximum DG hosting capacity of distribution networks, but the accuracy of the calculation results is affected by the upper limit of customer penetration. The literature [22] adopts a linear optimization method. The comparison of the assessment results between the method proposed in this paper and other literature methods is shown in Fig 8 and Fig 9 in "Response to Reviewers.pdf". The calculation results of other literature methods may be either conservative or aggressive. The method proposed in this paper can reduce the conservatism of the calculation results by adjusting the magnitude of the DG correction power ΔPDG in the recursive process. The safety constraint verification during the recursive process ensures that the calculation results do not become too aggressive and violate safety constraints. 5、In the subsection ''Comparison of different sensitivity indexes'', the traditional sensitivity indexes are briefly described to give the reader a basic understanding. Thank you for your suggestion. We have supplemented the introduction of the traditional sensitivity index in the subsection "Comparison of different sensitivity indexes". Please refer to the modifications on pages 13-14, line 406-413. Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.pdf https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0313164.r002
9 Sep 2024 Decision Letter - Jianguo Wang, Editor PONE-D-24-01853R1Research on Assessment Method of Maximum Distributed Generation Hosting Capacity in Distribution System With High Shares of Renewables and Power ElectronicsPLOS ONE Dear Dr. He, 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. ============================== ACADEMIC EDITOR: Please address the comments from reviewers The quality of this manuscript should be improved in English and presentations, too. ============================== Please submit your revised manuscript by Oct 24 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, Jianguo Wang, PhD 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. [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 #2: (No Response) 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 #2: (No Response) Reviewer #3: Yes ****** 3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #2: (No Response) 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 #2: (No Response) 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 #2: (No Response) 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 #2: The paper has been substantially improved after the first revision. A few minor comments are listed below: 1. Do the 'safety constraints' and 'safety region' in Fig. 3 refer to the same thing? If they are two different things, this needs to be made clear. 2. Adding a few sentences on the organization of the paper would be helpful. 3. It would be better if the manuscript could provide direction on future research or the next steps following this study's completion in the conclusion. Please consider providing some guidance in this area. Reviewer #3: I'm very glad to review the paper in greater depth because the subject is interesting, and the submission is worthy of publication. The following are my suggestions: 1. Some discussion of the right-hand side of Eq(2) would help the reader understand the equation. 2. Please consider citing references to simplify the derivation process of Eq(17)–Eq(19). 3. The reviewer notices that the parameters Vlim and Slim are used multiple times throughout the paper. In which scenarios do these parameters represent upper bounds, and in which scenarios do they represent lower bounds? ****** 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 #2: No Reviewer #3: No ******** [NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.] While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0313164.r003
Revision 2
14 Oct 2024 Author Response Dear Editors and Reviewers, Thank you for your valuable comments and suggestions on our manuscript. We appreciate the time and effort you have spent in reviewing our work. Based on your valuable input, we have extensively revised our manuscript. Modifications have been highlighted in yellow in the "revised manuscript with track changes". The detailed point-by-point responses are listed below: Reply to Reviewer #2 Comment 1: Do the 'safety constraints' and 'safety region' in Fig. 3 refer to the same thing? If they are two different things, this needs to be made clear. Response 1: Thank for your suggestion. According to the definition in Eq(2), the upper bound ai,max and the lower bound ai,min of the distribution network state variable for both the 'safety constraints' and 'safety region' are derived from Eq(7) and Eq(8). However, the gi(Wt) for the 'safety constraints' is obtained through power flow calculation, while the gi(Wt) for the 'safety region' is calculated using the safety domain model. (page 9, line 280-282) Comment 2: Adding a few sentences on the organization of the paper would be helpful. Response 2: Thank you for your suggestion. We have added a description of the organization of the paper. (page 2-3, line 66-71) The remainder of this paper is organized as follows: Section 2 introduces the concepts of the distribution network operating point and the maximum DG hosting operating point. Section 3 presents the model for assessing maximum DG hosting capacity. Section 4 presents the proposed methodology, describing a two-step method that combines the linearization method and the recursive method. Section 5 presents the test system, numerical results, and discussion. Comment 3: It would be better if the manuscript could provide direction on future research or the next steps following this study's completion in the conclusion. Please consider providing some guidance in this area. Response 3: Thank you for your suggestion. We have added an introduction about the direction on future research. (page 14, line 439-441) To accurately assess the maximum DG hosting capacity in the distribution network, this paper proposes an two-step method that combines the linearization method and the recursive method. Firstly, the maximum DG hosting capacity in the distribution network is preliminarily calculated using linear optimization method, and then the preliminary calculation results are precisely corrected using recursive method. During the recursive process, an improved comprehensive sensitivity index is proposed to find the most suitable DG connection node for power correction. The improved comprehensive sensitivity index can accurately reflect the impact of different DG connection nodes on the distribution network state variables and achieve precise identification of weak points. Additionally, this paper proposes a safety constraint verification method based on security regions, which enhances the calculation speed of the recursive algorithm. Finally, the proposed method was tested and validated on the IEEE 33-bus distribution network. The simulation results indicate that the proposed method can accurately assess the maximum DG hosting capacity in the distribution network. The improved comprehensive sensitivity exhibits significant performance improvement over traditional sensitivity index in enhancing the accuracy of calculating the maximum DG hosting capacity. To further enhance the robustness of the assessment results, the next step of this study will focus on researching an evaluation method for DG hosting capacity in distribution networks that considers various uncertainties. Reply to Reviewer #3 Comment 1: Some discussion of the right-hand side of Eq(2) would help the reader understand the equation. Response 1: Thank you for your suggestion. We have added an introduction to the right-hand side of Eq (2). The revisions are as follows: (page 3, line 89-91) where ΩS is the distribution network safety region, gi(Wt) represents the value of the distribution network state variable ai when the operating point is Wt, ai,max and ai,min are the upper and lower limits of the distribution network state variable ai, respectively. Comment 2: Please consider citing references to simplify the derivation process of Eq(17)–Eq(19). Response 2: Thank you for your suggestion. We have simplified the derivation process of Eq (17) - Eq.(19) as per your recommendation. (page 6, line 178-179) Comment 3: The reviewer notices that the parameters Vlim and Slim are used multiple times throughout the paper. In which scenarios do these parameters represent upper bounds, and in which scenarios do they represent lower bounds? Response 3: Thank you for your suggestion. The theoretical analysis in the this paper indicates that an increase in DG output power will lead to a rise in node voltage and an increase in reverse power on the feeder. Therefore, for the assessment of DG hosting capacity, Vlim should be set as the upper limit of voltage, and Slim should be set as the upper limit of reverse power on the line. When the assessment target is the hosting capacity for distribution network loads or electric vehicle integration, Vlim should be set as the lower limit of voltage, while Slim should be set as the upper limit of forward power on the line. Changes to the reference list In the reference list, the format of references [4] and [12] has been modified. Reference [23] was a paper from Hunan Electric Power, but it could not be found on Google Scholar, so it has been replaced with relevant current references. Thank you again for your positive comments and valuable suggestions to improve the quality of our manuscript. Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0313164.r004
21 Oct 2024 Decision Letter - Jianguo Wang, Editor Research on Assessment Method of Maximum Distributed Generation Hosting Capacity in Distribution System With High Shares of Renewables and Power Electronics PONE-D-24-01853R2 Dear Dr. He, 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, Jianguo Wang, PhD 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 #2: All comments have been addressed Reviewer #3: (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 #2: Yes Reviewer #3: Yes ****** 3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #2: Yes 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 #2: Yes 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 #2: Yes 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 #2: The author has provided a detailed response to the reviewer's information，and detailed modifications were made to the main text. Thank you！ Reviewer #3: My doubts have been fully resolved. Thank you for the author's response， and I have no other questions. ****** 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 #2: No Reviewer #3: No ******** https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0313164.r005
Formally Accepted
24 Oct 2024 Acceptance Letter - Jianguo Wang, Editor PONE-D-24-01853R2 PLOS ONE Dear Dr. He, 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. Jianguo Wang Academic Editor PLOS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0313164.r006

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 .