Comparative study on corrosion characteristics of conductive concrete in red soil environment

Shan Lin; Xu Tian; Feng Pei; Pinghao Yang; Hongbo Cheng

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0313256

Peer Review History

Original SubmissionJune 25, 2024
23 Jul 2024 Decision Letter - Din Bandhu, Editor PONE-D-24-25823Comparative Study on Corrosion Characteristics of Conductive Concrete in Red Soil EnvironmentPLOS ONE Dear Dr. Cheng, 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 Sep 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, Din Bandhu, Ph.D. Academic Editor PLOS ONE Journal Requirements: When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements. 1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf 2. Please note that funding information should not appear in any 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. 3. Thank you for stating the following financial disclosure: "This research was funded by the Key projects of Natural Science Foundation of Jiangxi Province under grant 2021ACB204004." 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. 4. In this instance it seems there may be acceptable restrictions in place that prevent the public sharing of your minimal data. However, in line with our goal of ensuring long-term data availability to all interested researchers, PLOS’ Data Policy states that authors cannot be the sole named individuals responsible for ensuring data access (http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-acceptable-data-sharing-methods). Data requests to a non-author institutional point of contact, such as a data access or ethics committee, helps guarantee long term stability and availability of data. Providing interested researchers with a durable point of contact ensures data will be accessible even if an author changes email addresses, institutions, or becomes unavailable to answer requests. Before we proceed with your manuscript, please also provide non-author contact information (phone/email/hyperlink) for a data access committee, ethics committee, or other institutional body to which data requests may be sent. If no institutional body is available to respond to requests for your minimal data, please consider if there any institutional representatives who did not collaborate in the study, and are not listed as authors on the manuscript, who would be able to hold the data and respond to external requests for data access? If so, please provide their contact information (i.e., email address). Please also provide details on how you will ensure persistent or long-term data storage and availability. [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 following list of comments will help to further improve the manuscript: - The most striking section of a study is the abstract section. Therefore, important results from the study should be highlighted. - The novelty of the study should be mentioned a little more in the introduction section. - The flowchart should be added to the study. Thus, the intelligibility of the study will increase. - The “Grounding Metal Corrosion Evaluation Index and Test Method” and “Testing and Analysis of Corrosion Characteristics of Conductive Concrete Grounding Materials” sections should be rewritten more comprehensively. - The following sections should be rewritten carefully. “4.2 Grounding Metals Corrosion Characteristics Testing in Different Environments The corrosion characteristics of commonly used grounding metals, Q235 carbon steel and galvanized steel, in red soil, ordinary concrete, and conductive concrete were investigated using the CS310H electrochemical workstation. Open-circuit potential, potentiodynamic polarization curves, and electrochemical impedance spectroscopy were conducted and analyzed for these metals in various environments. Different types and compositions of conductive concrete were also tested to evaluate their impact on the corrosion behavior of grounding metals. Fig 8 and Fig 9 depict the open-circuit potentials of Q235 carbon steel (comprising C, Mn, Si, S, P, and Fe) and galvanized steel (composed of common carbon steel with a zinc and aluminum coating). The polarization curves for Q235 carbon steel and galvanized steel can be seen in Fig 10 and Fig 11, while electrochemical impedance spectroscopy results are presented in Fig 12 and Fig 13. In these Figs, "SSF" refers to Stainless Steel Fiber. 4.3 Comparison of Metal Corrosion in Different Soil Environments From Fig 8 and Fig 9, it can be seen that the open-circuit potential of metal electrodes in red soil is lower than that in concrete, and the potential of specimens with conductive phase is higher than that of the ordinary concrete. The open circuit potential of metal samples was significantly increased whether they were wrapped in graphite based or stainless steel fiberbased conductive concrete. The results show that the corrosion sensitivity of metals in conductive concrete is greatly reduced. From the polarization curves in Fig 10 and Fig 11, it is evident that in red soil, the corrosion potential is the lowest and the corrosion current is the highest. In ordinary concrete, the corrosion potential increases and the corrosion current decreases compared to red soil. In conductive concrete, there is a noticeable increase in corrosion potential and a more significant decrease in corrosion current. Additionally, the passivation zone in red soil is notably shorter than in ordinary concrete and conductive concrete. This suggests that the abundance of acidic ions in red soil accelerates surface oxidation of the metal, making it challenging to form a stable passivation film. Therefore, wrapping the metal electrode with conductive concrete can potentially delay metal corrosion and enhance its durability. From the electrochemical impedance spectroscopy shown in Fig 12 and Fig 13, it is apparent that compared to concrete, the capacitance arc radius in red soil is very small, indicating poor corrosion resistance of grounding metals in a red soil environment. Furthermore, the capacitance arc radius in conductive concrete differs from that in ordinary concrete, depending on the specific conductive materials added and their concentration. In summary, among the four different soil environments tested, red soil exhibits the highest corrosion propensity, followed by ordinary concrete, while conductive concrete demonstrates good corrosion resistance. This difference arises due to the higher water and ion concentrations in red soil and the lower moisture and free ion concentrations in concrete, thereby weakening concrete's corrosion capability. Conductive concrete, enriched with conductive materials, serves to shunt current during experiments, thereby reducing electrolytic corrosion during electrification processes. 4.4 Comparison of Metal Corrosion in Different Conductive Concrete Based on the previous analysis, conductive concrete demonstrates effective corrosion protection. This material incorporates various conductive phase materials, with graphite representing non-metallic conductive phases and stainless steel fiber representing metallic conductive phases. Let's compare the effects of these different conductive phase materials on corrosion protection. In Figs 9 and 10, the open circuit potential of graphite conductive concrete is higher compared to stainless steel fiber conductive concrete. Additionally, the self-corrosion potential of graphite conductive concrete in Figs 10 and 11 is also higher than that of stainless steel fiber conductive concrete, indicating that graphite conductive concrete exhibits a smaller corrosion tendency and better corrosion resistance than stainless steel fiber. Moreover, in Figs 12 and 13, the radius of the capacitance arc for graphite conductive concrete is larger than that for stainless steel conductive concrete. This indicates that graphite conductive concrete offers greater impedance to corrosive charges and is less prone to corrosion. All three indicators consistently suggest that graphite conductive concrete provides superior corrosion resistance compared to stainless steel fiber conductive concrete. 4.5 Comparison of Metal Corrosion in Different Conductive Material Content In addition to the type of conductive phase materials, the content of these materials also significantly impacts the corrosion resistance of conductive concrete. Figs 8 to 13 illustrate that, for a given conductive phase material, increasing its content results in higher open circuit potential, polarization potential, and capacitance arc radius of the metal. These observations indicate that the corrosion resistance of conductive concrete improves as the content of conductive phase materials increases From a corrosion resistance perspective, higher concentrations of conductive phase materials positively affect the performance of conductive concrete. However, in practical applications, it is crucial to balance the content of conductive phase materials with considerations of mechanical strength and conductivity. Achieving an optimal ratio is essential to ensure both effective corrosion protection and satisfactory overall performance of conductive concrete. 4.6 Corrosion Comparison of Different Grounding Metals Comparing Fig 8 and Fig 9 under the same red soil environment, it is evident that the open circuit potential of galvanized steel has significantly increased compared to Q235 carbon steel. Upon stabilization, the potential becomes more positive, with the lowest value rising from - 0.083V to -0.0475V. This shift indicates lower corrosion sensitivity and stronger corrosion resistance for galvanized steel. In Figs 10 and 11, the self-corrosion current of galvanized steel is slightly positive compared to Q235 carbon steel, with a decrease of approximately two orders of magnitude in corrosion current. The passivation zone slope is also steeper and more pronounced for galvanized steel, suggesting that the zinc coating provides better corrosion resistance compared to Q235 carbon steel. Figs 12 and 13 show that the electrochemical impedance spectra of galvanized steel in red soil solution are generally similar to those of Q235 carbon steel. However, upon adding conductive phase materials, the capacitance arc radius of galvanized steel is slightly larger than that of Q235 carbon steel. These observations collectively indicate that galvanized steel exhibits better corrosion resistance than Q235 carbon steel across various environmental conditions.” - Lines in graphs should be thickened. (too bad) - The “Conclusion” section should be reviewed. (It should be enriched with the results obtained.) Reviewer #2: Overall, this is a well-written manuscript. The introduction is relevant and theory-based, supported by experiments. Sufficient information about the previous study findings is presented for readers. The methods are generally appropriate Overall, the results are clear because of the good graphical representation. ****** 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. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0313256.r001
Revision 1
9 Sep 2024 Author Response Reviewer #1: --- The following list of comments will help to further improve the manuscript: - The most striking section of a study is the abstract section. Therefore, important results from the study should be highlighted. Response: we have modified the abstract. - The novelty of the study should be mentioned a little more in the introduction section. Response: we have added a paragraph in introduction to address our novelty, which is highlighted. - The flowchart should be added to the study. Thus, the intelligibility of the study will increase. Response: that’s a good idea, and we have draw a diagram to show the diagram of our experiment, shown as Fig 5. - The “Grounding Metal Corrosion Evaluation Index and Test Method” and “Testing and Analysis of Corrosion Characteristics of Conductive Concrete Grounding Materials” sections should be rewritten more comprehensively. Response: we have added and revised in section 4. - The following sections should be rewritten carefully. “4.2 Grounding Metals Corrosion Characteristics Testing in Different Environments The corrosion characteristics of commonly used grounding metals, Q235 carbon steel and galvanized steel, in red soil, ordinary concrete, and conductive concrete were investigated using the CS310H electrochemical workstation. Open-circuit potential, potentiodynamic polarization curves, and electrochemical impedance spectroscopy were conducted and analyzed for these metals in various environments. Different types and compositions of conductive concrete were also tested to evaluate their impact on the corrosion behavior of grounding metals. Fig 8 and Fig 9 depict the open-circuit potentials of Q235 carbon steel (comprising C, Mn, Si, S, P, and Fe) and galvanized steel (composed of common carbon steel with a zinc and aluminum coating). The polarization curves for Q235 carbon steel and galvanized steel can be seen in Fig 10 and Fig 11, while electrochemical impedance spectroscopy results are presented in Fig 12 and Fig 13. In these Figs, "SSF" refers to Stainless Steel Fiber. 4.3 Comparison of Metal Corrosion in Different Soil Environments From Fig 8 and Fig 9, it can be seen that the open-circuit potential of metal electrodes in red soil is lower than that in concrete, and the potential of specimens with conductive phase is higher than that of the ordinary concrete. The open circuit potential of metal samples was significantly increased whether they were wrapped in graphite based or stainless steel fiberbased conductive concrete. The results show that the corrosion sensitivity of metals in conductive concrete is greatly reduced. From the polarization curves in Fig 10 and Fig 11, it is evident that in red soil, the corrosion potential is the lowest and the corrosion current is the highest. In ordinary concrete, the corrosion potential increases and the corrosion current decreases compared to red soil. In conductive concrete, there is a noticeable increase in corrosion potential and a more significant decrease in corrosion current. Additionally, the passivation zone in red soil is notably shorter than in ordinary concrete and conductive concrete. This suggests that the abundance of acidic ions in red soil accelerates surface oxidation of the metal, making it challenging to form a stable passivation film. Therefore, wrapping the metal electrode with conductive concrete can potentially delay metal corrosion and enhance its durability. From the electrochemical impedance spectroscopy shown in Fig 12 and Fig 13, it is apparent that compared to concrete, the capacitance arc radius in red soil is very small, indicating poor corrosion resistance of grounding metals in a red soil environment. Furthermore, the capacitance arc radius in conductive concrete differs from that in ordinary concrete, depending on the specific conductive materials added and their concentration. In summary, among the four different soil environments tested, red soil exhibits the highest corrosion propensity, followed by ordinary concrete, while conductive concrete demonstrates good corrosion resistance. This difference arises due to the higher water and ion concentrations in red soil and the lower moisture and free ion concentrations in concrete, thereby weakening concrete's corrosion capability. Conductive concrete, enriched with conductive materials, serves to shunt current during experiments, thereby reducing electrolytic corrosion during electrification processes. 4.4 Comparison of Metal Corrosion in Different Conductive Concrete Based on the previous analysis, conductive concrete demonstrates effective corrosion protection. This material incorporates various conductive phase materials, with graphite representing non-metallic conductive phases and stainless steel fiber representing metallic conductive phases. Let's compare the effects of these different conductive phase materials on corrosion protection. In Figs 9 and 10, the open circuit potential of graphite conductive concrete is higher compared to stainless steel fiber conductive concrete. Additionally, the self-corrosion potential of graphite conductive concrete in Figs 10 and 11 is also higher than that of stainless steel fiber conductive concrete, indicating that graphite conductive concrete exhibits a smaller corrosion tendency and better corrosion resistance than stainless steel fiber. Moreover, in Figs 12 and 13, the radius of the capacitance arc for graphite conductive concrete is larger than that for stainless steel conductive concrete. This indicates that graphite conductive concrete offers greater impedance to corrosive charges and is less prone to corrosion. All three indicators consistently suggest that graphite conductive concrete provides superior corrosion resistance compared to stainless steel fiber conductive concrete. 4.5 Comparison of Metal Corrosion in Different Conductive Material Content In addition to the type of conductive phase materials, the content of these materials also significantly impacts the corrosion resistance of conductive concrete. Figs 8 to 13 illustrate that, for a given conductive phase material, increasing its content results in higher open circuit potential, polarization potential, and capacitance arc radius of the metal. These observations indicate that the corrosion resistance of conductive concrete improves as the content of conductive phase materials increases From a corrosion resistance perspective, higher concentrations of conductive phase materials positively affect the performance of conductive concrete. However, in practical applications, it is crucial to balance the content of conductive phase materials with considerations of mechanical strength and conductivity. Achieving an optimal ratio is essential to ensure both effective corrosion protection and satisfactory overall performance of conductive concrete. 4.6 Corrosion Comparison of Different Grounding Metals Comparing Fig 8 and Fig 9 under the same red soil environment, it is evident that the open circuit potential of galvanized steel has significantly increased compared to Q235 carbon steel. Upon stabilization, the potential becomes more positive, with the lowest value rising from - 0.083V to -0.0475V. This shift indicates lower corrosion sensitivity and stronger corrosion resistance for galvanized steel. In Figs 10 and 11, the self-corrosion current of galvanized steel is slightly positive compared to Q235 carbon steel, with a decrease of approximately two orders of magnitude in corrosion current. The passivation zone slope is also steeper and more pronounced for galvanized steel, suggesting that the zinc coating provides better corrosion resistance compared to Q235 carbon steel. Figs 12 and 13 show that the electrochemical impedance spectra of galvanized steel in red soil solution are generally similar to those of Q235 carbon steel. However, upon adding conductive phase materials, the capacitance arc radius of galvanized steel is slightly larger than that of Q235 carbon steel. These observations collectively indicate that galvanized steel exhibits better corrosion resistance than Q235 carbon steel across various environmental conditions.” Response: we have rewrited these sections as the content highlighted. - Lines in graphs should be thickened. (too bad) Response: we have thickened the lines from Fig 9 to Fig 14. - The “Conclusion” section should be reviewed. (It should be enriched with the results obtained.) Response: we have rewrited the conclusion. Reviewer #2: Overall, this is a well-written manuscript. The introduction is relevant and theory-based, supported by experiments. Sufficient information about the previous study findings is presented for readers. The methods are generally appropriate Overall, the results are clear because of the good graphical representation. Response: Thank you for your positive feedback and encouraging comments. Your recognition of our work is greatly appreciated. Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: response to review.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0313256.r002
22 Oct 2024 Decision Letter - Din Bandhu, Editor Comparative Study on Corrosion Characteristics of Conductive Concrete in Red Soil Environment PONE-D-24-25823R1 Dear Dr. Cheng, 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, Din Bandhu, 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: 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 #1: Yes ****** 3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: 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 ****** 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 ****** 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: Manuscript ID: PONE-D-24-25823R1 entitled " Comparative Study on Corrosion Characteristics of Conductive Concrete in Red Soil Environment" for journal of “PLOS ONE" has been reviewed. After the revision carried out by the authors; -Abstract clearly presents objects methods and results. -Keywords are adequate. -Scientific methods are adequately used. -Terminology is adequate. -Results are clearly presented. -Conclusions are logically derived from the data presented. ---- Consequently; The authors have made significant improvements to the paper by addressing the feedback provided by the reviewers, resulting in a clearer presentation of results. Based on these revisions, the paper is now ready for acceptance. ****** 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 ******** https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0313256.r003
Formally Accepted
28 Oct 2024 Acceptance Letter - Din Bandhu, Editor PONE-D-24-25823R1 PLOS ONE Dear Dr. Cheng, 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. Din Bandhu Academic Editor PLOS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0313256.r004

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 .