Optimization of satellite-based communication links

Bilal Muhammad Khan; Muhammad Raheel

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0315388

Peer Review History

Original SubmissionAugust 20, 2024
20 Aug 2024 Author Response https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0315388.r001
3 Sep 2024 Decision Letter - Muhammad Zulkifl Hasan, Editor PONE-D-24-33931Optimization of Satellite-based Communication LinksPLOS ONE Dear Dr. Khan, 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 Oct 18 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, Muhammad Zulkifl Hasan, 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. Thank you for stating the following in your Competing Interests section: [NA]. Please complete your Competing Interests on the online submission form to state any Competing Interests. If you have no competing interests, please state "The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.", as detailed online in our guide for authors at http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submit-now This information should be included in your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf. Additional Editor Comments: The manuscript titled "Optimization of Satellite-based Communication Links" presents a comprehensive approach to enhancing the reliability and efficiency of satellite communication networks, particularly focusing on the automatic shifting of remote terminals between Hub Stations to ensure continuous service. The authors propose an innovative method using a Unique Option File that enables seamless switching without significant hardware or software changes. The methodology is validated through practical tests, demonstrating substantial improvements in switching time and cost-effectiveness compared to existing methods. To improve the manuscript, consider providing more detailed explanations of the underlying principles of the proposed algorithm and how it integrates with existing satellite communication technologies. Additionally, expanding the discussion on the broader implications and potential applications of this optimization technique across different satellite networks would strengthen the manuscript's contribution to the field. Clarifying the limitations and future research directions would also provide a more comprehensive perspective for readers. [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: No ****** 5. Review Comments to the Author Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters) Reviewer #1: The manuscript titled "Optimization of Satellite-based Communication Links" demonstrates a significant effort to address the challenges of redundancy and disaster recovery in satellite communication (SATCOM) networks. While the research presents an innovative solution using a unique option file for automatic shifting between primary and secondary hub stations without requiring significant hardware changes or the iDirect Global NMS, there are several weaknesses in the approach that need to be addressed. Firstly, the methodology heavily relies on the assumption that both the primary and secondary hub stations operate on the same iDirect Evolution Software version. This creates a potential limitation as any software updates or version mismatches could render the proposed solution ineffective. Additionally, the study lacks a detailed analysis of the performance impacts or potential network congestion that may arise during the automatic switching process. The research also does not adequately consider scenarios where multiple remote terminals simultaneously initiate the switching process, which could lead to network bottlenecks or increased latency. These limitations suggest that while the proposed solution is promising, further testing and optimization are required to ensure its robustness and scalability in diverse SATCOM network environments. Reviewer #2: Clarity and Structure of the Introduction: The introduction section is quite dense, with many technical details presented early on. Consider breaking down the introduction into more digestible segments, where the broader context and significance of the study can be established before delving into the specific technical challenges and solutions. This will make it easier for readers unfamiliar with the subject to understand the importance of the research. Literature Review Integration: While the manuscript references a wide array of studies, the integration of these references could be more cohesive. Currently, the references feel somewhat disjointed. A more synthesized review of the literature, focusing on how the proposed work builds upon or diverges from existing studies, would strengthen the manuscript's foundation. Detailed Methodological Justification: The methodology section provides a general overview of the processes used. However, it would benefit from a more detailed explanation of why certain methods were chosen over others. For instance, the decision to not use iDirect Global NMS could be further elaborated with a comparison of potential alternatives and their limitations. This will help to justify the proposed approach more convincingly. Validation and Generalization of Results: The manuscript presents a single case study as validation of the proposed model. While the results are promising, the manuscript would be stronger if it included multiple test cases or scenarios to demonstrate the robustness and generalizability of the model across different conditions. This could include varying environmental factors, network configurations, or hardware setups. Quantitative Analysis of Performance Improvements: The results section discusses the time savings achieved through the proposed model. However, a more in-depth quantitative analysis, possibly with statistical validation, could provide stronger evidence of the model’s superiority. For example, comparing the performance metrics across several trials and providing a detailed analysis of the variance would add rigor to the findings. Technical Details on Implementation: The manuscript mentions the development of a Unique Option File for registration of Satcom Modems. More detailed information on the implementation of this file, such as the specific parameters configured and how they interact with the network, would be valuable. Additionally, a flowchart or diagram illustrating the process could enhance reader comprehension. Discussion of Limitations and Future Work: While the manuscript briefly mentions the need for further development, it lacks a detailed discussion of the current limitations of the proposed model. Identifying areas where the model might struggle or scenarios it may not cover would provide a more balanced perspective. Additionally, outlining concrete steps for future research would guide subsequent studies and demonstrate the authors’ awareness of the field’s evolving challenges. Figures and Tables: The figures and tables included in the manuscript are useful, but their captions could be more descriptive. Each figure and table should be able to stand alone, with the captions providing enough context for readers to understand the content without referring back to the main text. Language and Technical Jargon: The manuscript is written in a highly technical style, which may limit its accessibility to a broader audience. Simplifying some of the technical jargon and providing brief explanations of complex terms when first introduced could make the manuscript more inclusive to readers from different backgrounds. Ethical and Practical Considerations: The manuscript does not address any ethical or practical considerations related to the deployment of the proposed system in real-world environments. Discussing potential risks, such as data security concerns or operational challenges, would provide a more comprehensive view of the implications of this research. By addressing these areas, the manuscript could significantly improve in clarity, rigor, and overall impact. The research presented is valuable, but refining these aspects will enhance its contribution to the field of satellite communication optimization. ****** 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: Muhammad Zunnurain Hussain 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.0315388.r002
Revision 1
25 Sep 2024 Author Response Editor’s and Reviewer’s Comments The Authors would like to take this opportunity to appreciate Editor and Reviewers Constructive feedback and made sure that all the comments made by the worthy persons are addressed to the best of Author’s knowledge. Please find below Comments by Comments Responses. These are also being incorporated in the revised manuscript uploaded by the Authors. Editor/Reviewers Comments Response Editor’s Comments 1. To improve the manuscript, consider providing more detailed explanations of the underlying principles of the proposed algorithm A complete new section is added in the revised manuscript under the heading of “Proposed Algorithm” on Page 06, Line # 205-289. Moreover a flow chart of the proposed algorithm is also added as Figure #01 on Page 08, Line#277 of the revised manuscript. 2. Explain how the proposed technique integrates with existing satellite communication technologies. A complete new section is added in the revised manuscript under the heading of “Integrating proposed technique with Existing Satellite Technologies” on Page 09, Line # 312-406. 3. Additionally, expanding the discussion on the broader implications and potential applications of this optimization technique across different satellite networks would strengthen the manuscript's contribution to the field. A complete new section is added in the revised manuscript under the heading of “Implications and Applications of Proposed Algorithm” on Page 17, Line # 533-640. 4. Clarifying the limitations and future research directions would also provide a more comprehensive perspective for readers. A complete new section is added in the revised manuscript under the heading of “Limitations of Proposed Technique” on Page 20, Line # 641-731. A complete new section is added in the revised manuscript under the heading of “Future Work” on Page 22, Line # 732-817. Reviewer # 1 Comments 1. The methodology heavily relies on the assumption that both the primary and secondary hub stations operate on the same iDirect Evolution Software version. This creates a potential limitation as any software updates or version mismatches could render the proposed solution ineffective. The Authors appreciate the reviewer highlighting the assumption related to both the primary and secondary hub stations operating on the same iDirect Evolution Software version. We acknowledge this as a potential limitation, however, since the algorithm is developed on running hardware actual system this limitation can be justified and further rectified as discussed on Page#09, Line # 291-311; Under the headings of “Software Version Compatibility & Mitigation of Version Mismatch Risks” of revised manuscript. Furthermore a subsection of “Frame ware Development” under the section of “Future Work” on Page #22, Line#733-741, elaborates in detail how to eliminate such limitations in future extension of the proposed work. 2. The study lacks a detailed analysis of the performance impacts or potential network congestion that may arise during the automatic switching process. The research also does not adequately consider scenarios where multiple remote terminals simultaneously initiate the switching process, which could lead to network bottlenecks or increased latency. These limitations suggest that while the proposed solution is promising, further testing and optimization are required to ensure its robustness and scalability in diverse SATCOM network environments. Authors appreciate reviewer’s insights into the potential performance impacts and network congestion during the automatic switching process. Also acknowledge the fact that further testing is essential to analyze and ensure the scalability and robustness of our proposed solution. All these concerns are addressed under a complete new section added in the revised manuscript “Future Work” on PAGE #22, Line #732-775. Reviewer # 2 Comments The methodology section provides a general overview of the processes used. However, it would benefit from a more detailed explanation of why certain methods were chosen over others. For instance, the decision to not use iDirect Global NMS could be further elaborated with a comparison of potential alternatives and their limitations. This will help to justify the proposed approach more convincingly. Details along with explanation of why certain methods were chosen over others already mentioned under the heading “Hub Station Redundancy in an iDirect Network”. Comparison of the available methodologies is included in “Table 1”, Page#4, and Line #117-118 in the revised manuscript. Moreover since iDirect Satcom equipment is based on proprietary technologies and algorithms unique to the equipment manufacturer i.e. ST Engineering. The only solution provided by the vendor for implementing automatic shifting of remotes between two Hub Station is the implementation of iDirect Global NMS. Since, no alternatives are available; therefore, comparison has only been made with the possible Manual Switching mechanisms / alternatives. The manuscript presents a single case study as validation of the proposed model. While the results are promising, the manuscript would be stronger if it included multiple test cases or scenarios to demonstrate the robustness and generalizability of the model across different conditions. This could include varying environmental factors, network configurations, or hardware setups. Validation of the proposed model has been carried out on a real iDirect Satcom Network. Since, the facility used for the testing is an operational iDirect Network and testing required disruption of services by Switching ‘Off’ Downstream Frequency Carrier of the Primary Hub Station; therefore, multiple test cases or scenarios could not be implemented as same would have resulted in unavailability of the Satcom Network for users. However, extensive testing and validation of the proposed switching mechanism under various scenarios and load conditions is being suggested under the section of “Future Work” on Page#22, Line 732-815. Ensuring that the proposed automatic switching mechanism performs reliably under all circumstances. The results section discusses the time savings achieved through the proposed model. However, a more in-depth quantitative analysis, possibly with statistical validation, could provide stronger evidence of the model’s superiority. For example, comparing the performance metrics across several trials and providing a detailed analysis of the variance would add rigor to the findings. Validation of the proposed model has been carried out on a real iDirect Satcom Network. Since, the facility used for the testing is an operational iDirect Network and testing required disruption of services by Switching ‘Off’ Downstream Frequency Carrier of the Primary Hub Station; therefore, performance across several trials could not be tested as same would have resulted in unavailability of the Satcom Network for users. However, the methodology was tested for more than 20 times to validate the automatic switching during each test. Extensive testing and validation of the proposed switching mechanism is being suggested under the section of “Future Work” on Page#22, Line 732-815.. This will ensure that the proposed automatic switching mechanism performs reliably under all circumstances. The manuscript mentions the development of a Unique Option File for registration of Satcom Modems. More detailed information on the implementation of this file, such as the specific parameters configured and how they interact with the network, would be valuable. Additionally, a flowchart or diagram illustrating the process could enhance reader comprehension. As suggested by the reviewer key features of the developed solution are further enhanced and elaborated under the section “Optimized Shifting Model” on Page#04, Line # 130-204. Furthermore a complete new section is added in the revised manuscript under the heading of “Proposed Algorithm” on Page 06, Line # 205-289. Moreover a flow chart of the proposed algorithm is also added as Figure #01 on Page 08, Line#277 of the revised manuscript. These sections further clarify and elaborate the working mechanism of the proposed technique. While the manuscript briefly mentions the need for further development, it lacks a detailed discussion of the current limitations of the proposed model. Identifying areas where the model might struggle or scenarios it may not cover would provide a more balanced perspective. Additionally, outlining concrete steps for future research would guide subsequent studies and demonstrate the authors’ awareness of the field’s evolving challenges. As per reviewer suggestions: A complete new section is added in the revised manuscript under the heading of “Limitations of Proposed Technique” on Page 20, Line # 641-731. Complete new section added in the revised manuscript “Future Work” on PAGE #22, Line #732-775. The manuscript is written in a highly technical style, which may limit its accessibility to a broader audience. Simplifying some of the technical jargon and providing brief explanations of complex terms when first introduced could make the manuscript more inclusive to readers from different backgrounds. The authors as per reviewer suggestions to the best of their knowledge where required explained Jargons and tried to make entire manuscript easily understandable by providing explanations to complex terms where ever possible in a balanced way. The manuscript does not address any ethical or practical considerations related to the deployment of the proposed system in real-world environments. Discussing potential risks, such as data security concerns or operational challenges, would provide a more comprehensive view of the implications of this research. Implementation of the proposed solution, does not tailor / change iDirect's proprietary technology as well as communication algorithm; therefore, it does not result in a data security concern in addition to existing limitations of iDirect equipment. Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Reviewer response.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0315388.r003
22 Oct 2024 Decision Letter - Elochukwu Ukwandu, Editor PONE-D-24-33931R1Optimization of Satellite-based Communication LinksPLOS ONE Dear Dr. Khan, Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process. Please submit your revised manuscript by Dec 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, Elochukwu Ukwandu, 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. Additional Editor Comments: The Authors are to address comments from Reviewer #3 as shown below. The authors have put considerable effort into addressing the reviewers' comments. While the paper has undergone significant improvements, the authors are encouraged to make the following adjustments: 1. Despite the authors' revisions, certain sections still require more practical discussion and improved coherence in the results discussion. 2. The discussions regarding both technical and practical aspects, as well as comparisons to recent studies on this topic, need thorough examination. 3. For effective comparison of the proposed scheme with the other schemes, the variables of the presented results should start from almost the same steady state. However, this is not the case in this paper. 4. The references require updating and upgrading, as many of them are outdated. Additionally, some references need to be more practical, impactful, comprehensive, and robust. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.optcom.2020.126219 https://doi.org/10.1049/ote2.12111 I recommend accepting the paper after minor revisions Comments from PLOS Editorial Office: We note that one or more reviewers has recommended that you cite specific previously published works. As always, we recommend that you please review and evaluate the requested works to determine whether they are relevant and should be cited. It is not a requirement to cite these works. We appreciate your attention to this request. [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: 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 #1: Yes Reviewer #3: (No Response) ****** 3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #3: (No Response) ****** 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 #3: (No Response) ****** 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 #3: (No Response) ****** 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: The author has incorporated all the changes as desired. The revisions have been well addressed and significantly improved the clarity and overall quality of the manuscript. The methodology has been thoroughly explained, and the results are presented in a clear and concise manner. All previously noted concerns have been adequately resolved, and there are no outstanding issues related to dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. I am satisfied with the current version of the manuscript, and it is now ready for publication. Reviewer #3: The authors have put considerable effort into addressing the reviewers' comments. While the paper has undergone significant improvements, the authors are encouraged to make the following adjustments: 1. Despite the authors' revisions, certain sections still require more practical discussion and improved coherence in the results discussion. 2. The discussions regarding both technical and practical aspects, as well as comparisons to recent studies on this topic, need thorough examination. 3. For effective comparison of the proposed scheme with the other schemes, the variables of the presented results should start from almost the same steady state. However, this is not the case in this paper. 4. The references require updating and upgrading, as many of them are outdated. Additionally, some references need to be more practical, impactful, comprehensive, and robust. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.optcom.2020.126219 https://doi.org/10.1049/ote2.12111 I recommend accepting the paper after minor revisions. ****** 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: Yes: Muhammad Zunnurain Hussain Reviewer #3: Yes: Ebrahim E. Elsayed ******** [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.0315388.r004
Revision 2
20 Nov 2024 Author Response please find attach required reviewer responses Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: 2nd Round Reviewer response.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0315388.r005
26 Nov 2024 Decision Letter - Elochukwu Ukwandu, Editor Optimization of Satellite-based Communication Links PONE-D-24-33931R2 Dear Dr. Khan, 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, Elochukwu Ukwandu, 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 #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 #3: (No Response) ****** 3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #3: (No Response) ****** 4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available? The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified. Reviewer #3: (No Response) ****** 5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English? PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here. Reviewer #3: (No Response) ****** 6. Review Comments to the Author Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters) Reviewer #3: The authors fully have addressed all the previous comments. The authors have made all the comments and corrections requested by the reviewers, so I recommend accepting the paper in the PLOS ONE journal. ****** 7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean? ). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files. If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public. Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy . Reviewer #3: Yes: Ebrahim E. Elsayed ******** https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0315388.r006
Formally Accepted
Acceptance Letter - Elochukwu Ukwandu, Editor PONE-D-24-33931R2 PLOS ONE Dear Dr. Khan, 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. Elochukwu Ukwandu Academic Editor PLOS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0315388.r007

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 .