PONE-D-24-28810

Failure Mechanisms of Soft– hard- interceded Rock Slopes in Cold Regions

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Zhang,

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 26 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,

Davood Fereidooni, 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. We suggest you thoroughly copyedit your manuscript for language usage, spelling, and grammar. If you do not know anyone who can help you do this, you may wish to consider employing a professional scientific editing service.  

The American Journal Experts (AJE) (https://www.aje.com/) is one such service that has extensive experience helping authors meet PLOS guidelines and can provide language editing, translation, manuscript formatting, and figure formatting to ensure your manuscript meets our submission guidelines. Please note that having the manuscript copyedited by AJE or any other editing services does not guarantee selection for peer review or acceptance for publication. 

Upon resubmission, please provide the following: 

● The name of the colleague or the details of the professional service that edited your manuscript

● A copy of your manuscript showing your changes by either highlighting them or using track changes (uploaded as a *supporting information* file)

● A clean copy of the edited manuscript (uploaded as the new *manuscript* file)

3. 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.

4. Thank you for stating the following financial disclosure: 

   "This work was supported by the following 2 funds, programs, projects: Scientific Research Programme "Tianshan Excellence":<Mechanisms of coupled geological-hazard-hydrogeological-ecological-environmental feedback of mining on the north slope of Tianshan Mountain and its engineering geological significance>(2023TSYCCX0010), The National Natural Science Foundation of China (42367021)."

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.

5. 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.

6. Please amend either the title on the online submission form (via Edit Submission) or the title in the manuscript so that they are identical.

7. Please remove your figures from within your manuscript file, leaving only the individual TIFF/EPS image files, uploaded separately. These will be automatically included in the reviewers’ PDF.

8. We note that Figures 14-15 in your submission contain copyrighted images. All PLOS content is published under the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY 4.0), which means that the manuscript, images, and Supporting Information files will be freely available online, and any third party is permitted to access, download, copy, distribute, and use these materials in any way, even commercially, with proper attribution. For more information, see our copyright guidelines: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/licenses-and-copyright.

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

a. You may seek permission from the original copyright holder of Figures 14-15 to publish the content specifically under the CC BY 4.0 license. 

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

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

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

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

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

Additional Editor Comments:

Dear Dr. Zizhao Zhang,

I would like to thank you very much for submitting your manuscript to us for consideration. I have received now reviewers’ comments from our advisors on your manuscript, PONE-D-24-28810", Failure Mechanisms of Soft–hard- interceded Rock Slopes in Cold Regions". In this regard, I have come to the conclusion that your manuscript must be revised before publication in PLOS ONE. Below, please find the comments for your perusal. Please perform all required corrections based on the reviewers’ comments to the manuscript and resubmit its modified version to the journal.

With kind regards,

Davood Fereidooni, Ph.D.

Reviewers’ comments:

Reviewer#1

The authors submitted a very interesting article and in my opinion the paper should be published after minor revisions.

Comment 1: Purpose of this study is not given clearly (The authors have to indicate how to use results of this study in engineering practice). The authors should refer to novelty of the paper in the introduction section.

Comment 2: The affiliation should include city, state/province (if applicable).

Comment 3: Manuscript text should be double-spaced.

Comment 4: The text contains quite syntax and grammatical errors. As a reviewer I cannot correct all these errors. The manuscript should be carefully edited by a native English Speaker and some parts of text should be written again. I have highlighted some errors.

For example, in Line 13 you should delete “A”. Furthermore, you should use the word “interbedded” instead of “Interceded”.

In Line 18, you should delete “-'” after natural and the sentence will become “freeze-thaw cycles, natural, and anchored surroundings”

In Line 23 without “the”.

In Line 25 do not repeat the word “research”.

In Line 28: what means “UDEC” ? You should explain it.

In Line 36: “the” with capital the first letter.

In Line 38: “Promotes” instead of “promote”

Lines 45 – 46 are confused. Write them with another way.

Line 53 “are” instead of “is”.

Line 61 “make” instead of “makes”

Comment 5: In Line 114: In Table 2 uniaxial compressive strength is not shown.

Comment 6: Line 158: “monitoring point 3” instead of “monitoring point 2”

Comment 7: Line 160: “monitoring points 2 and 1” instead of “monitoring points 2 and 3”

Comment 8: Line 186: “ the forces at each monitoring point in Figure 12b increase before gradually stabilizing”. Are you sure that it increases?

Comment 9: In Lines 194-197, the sentence should be written better.

Comment 10: The references are not in the right format.

Comment 11: The figures are not in the right format.

Comment 12: The conclusion is brief in length. Write more sentences and more analytically. Also the conclusions should try to mention some form of practical application of the results. Or further research that can lead to a practical use.

Reviewer#2

The paper presents a clear and concise overview of the research on the impact of freeze-thaw on rock slopes with weak interlayers. The problem statement is well-defined and the key findings are summarized effectively. However, there are opportunities to strengthen the paper by providing more quantitative details and implications.

• The introduction should be strengthened with more recent references to support the research gap and the significance of the study. The number of references is inadequate.

• Explain more about how to measure strength values and the standard methods used for values in Tables 1 and 2.

• Has the role of ice wedge pressure in rock joints been seen for modeling?

• The density of rock materials in natural state and freezing – thawing are considered the same in modeling. This is despite the fact that the rock must face a decrease in density after enduring freezing.

• Provide more details about the numerical simulation methods.

• Discuss the implications of the findings for slope stability and risk assessment.

• Conduct a sensitivity analysis to assess the impact of key model parameters.

• Clearly articulate the practical implications of the findings.

[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: Partly

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: I Don't Know

**********

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: No

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: No

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 authors submitted a very interesting article and in my opinion the paper should be published after minor revisions.

Comment 1: Purpose of this study is not given clearly (The authors have to indicate how to use results of this study in engineering practice). The authors should refer to novelty of the paper in the introduction section.

Comment 2: The affiliation should include city, state/province (if applicable).

Comment 3: Manuscript text should be double-spaced.

Comment 4: The text contains quite syntax and grammatical errors. As a reviewer I cannot correct all these errors. The manuscript should be carefully edited by a native English Speaker and some parts of text should be written again. I have highlighted some errors.

For example, in Line 13 you should delete “A”. Furthermore, you should use the word “interbedded” instead of “Interceded”.

In Line 18, you should delete “-“ after natural and the sentence will become “freeze-thaw cycles, natural, and anchored surroundings”

In Line 23 without “the”.

In Line 25 do not repeat the word “research”.

In Line 28: what means “UDEC” ? You should explain it.

In Line 36: “the” with capital the first letter.

In Line 38: “Promotes” instead of “promote”

Lines 45 – 46 are confused. Write them with another way.

Line 53 “are” instead of “is”.

Line 61 “make” instead of “makes”

Comment 5: In Line 114: In Table 2 uniaxial compressive strength is not shown.

Comment 6: Line 158: “monitoring point 3” instead of “monitoring point 2”

Comment 7: Line 160: “monitoring points 2 and 1” instead of “monitoring points 2 and 3”

Comment 8: Line 186: “ the forces at each monitoring point in Figure 12b increase before gradually stabilizing”. Are you sure that it increases?

Comment 9: In Lines 194-197, the sentence should be written better.

Comment 10: The references are not in the right format.

Comment 11: The figures are not in the right format.

Comment 12: The conclusionς are brief in length. Write more sentences and more analytically. Also the conclusions should try to mention some form of practical application of the results. Or further research that can lead to a practical use.

Reviewer #2: The paper presents a clear and concise overview of the research on the impact of freeze-thaw on rock slopes with weak interlayers. The problem statement is well-defined and the key findings are summarized effectively. However, there are opportunities to strengthen the paper by providing more quantitative details and implications.

• The introduction should be strengthened with more recent references to support the research gap and the significance of the study. The number of references is inadequate.

• Explain more about how to measure strength values and the standard methods used for values in Tables 1 and 2.

• Has the role of ice wedge pressure in rock joints been seen for modeling?

• The density of rock materials in natural state and freezing – thawing are considered the same in modeling. This is despite the fact that the rock must face a decrease in density after enduring freezing.

• Provide more details about the numerical simulation methods.

• Discuss the implications of the findings for slope stability and risk assessment.

• Conduct a sensitivity analysis to assess the impact of key model parameters.

• Clearly articulate the practical implications of the findings.

**********

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.

PONE-D-24-28810R1Failure Mechanisms of Soft– hard- interbedded Rock Slopes in Cold Regions：Numerical Simulation and Theoretical AnalysisPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Zhang,

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 Nov 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,

Davood Fereidooni, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice.

Additional Editor Comments:

Dear Dr. Zizhao Zhang,

I would like to thank you very much for submitting your manuscript to us for consideration. I have received now reviewers’ comments from our advisors on your manuscript, PONE-D-24-28810R1", Failure Mechanisms of Soft–hard- interceded Rock Slopes in Cold Regions". In this regard, I have come to the conclusion that your manuscript must be revised before publication in PLOS ONE. Below, please find the comments for your perusal. Please perform all required corrections based on the reviewers’ comments to the manuscript and resubmit its modified version to the journal.

With kind regards,

Davood Fereidooni, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

Reviewers’ comments:

Reviewer#1

The authors submitted a very interesting article and in my opinion the paper should be published after minor revisions.

Comment 1: Despite the fact that you corrected a lot of syntax and grammar errors, there are some ones to correct.

The manuscript should be carefully edited by a native English Speaker and some parts of text should be written again.

Comment 2:In table 1 and 2, you write "pniaxiai" instead of "uniaxial"

Comment 3: In table 12, there is decrease of forces. Not increase. Otherwise, you should refer that the tensile stress increases. you should explain it better.

Comment 4: The conclusions are brief in length. Write more sentences and more analytically. Also, the conclusions should try to mention some form of practical application of the results. Or further research that can lead to a practical use.

Reviewer#2

The authors have addressed all the comments raised by the reviewers in a comprehensive and satisfactory manner. The revised manuscript is well-written, well-structured, and presents a clear and compelling argument. I am happy to recommend this article for publication.

[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 #2: 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

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

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 authors submitted a very interesting article and in my opinion the paper should be published after minor revisions.

Comment 1: Despite the fact that you corrected a lot of syntax and grammar errors, there are some ones to correct.

The manuscript should be carefully edited by a native English Speaker and some parts of text should be written again.

Comment 2:In table 1 and 2, you write "pniaxiai" instead of "uniaxial"

Comment 3: In table 12, there is decrease of forces. Not increase. Otherwise, you should refer that the tensile stress increases. you should explain it better.

Comment 4:The conclusionς are brief in length. Write more sentences and more analytically. Also the conclusions should try to mention some form of practical application of the results. Or further research that can lead to a practical use.

Reviewer #2: The authors have addressed all the comments raised by the reviewers in a comprehensive and satisfactory manner. The revised manuscript is well-written, well-structured, and presents a clear and compelling argument. I am happy to recommend this article for publication.

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean? ). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy .

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

**********

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/ . PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org . Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

PONE-D-24-28810R2Failure Mechanisms of Soft– hard- interbedded Rock Slopes in Cold Regions：Numerical Simulation and Theoretical AnalysisPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Zhang,

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 Jan 12 2025 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,

Davood Fereidooni, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice.

Additional Editor Comments:

Dear Author(s)

I would like to thank you very much for submitting your manuscript to us for consideration. I have received now reviewers’ comments from our advisors on your manuscript, PONE-D-24-28810R1", Failure Mechanisms of Soft–hard- interceded Rock Slopes in Cold Regions". In this regard, I have come to the conclusion that your manuscript must be revised before publication in PLOS ONE. Below, please find the reviewer comments I believe still need to be addressed from the previous round of revisions for your perusal. Please perform all required corrections based on the reviewers’ comments to the manuscript and resubmit its modified version to the journal.

With kind regards,

Davood Fereidooni, Ph.D.

Reviewer#1 Comments:

The authors submitted a very interesting article and in my opinion the paper should be published after minor revisions.

Comment 1: Despite the fact that you corrected a lot of syntax and grammar errors, there are some ones to correct.

The manuscript should be carefully edited by a native English Speaker and some parts of text should be written again.

Comment 2:In table 1 and 2, you write "pniaxiai" instead of "uniaxial"

Comment 3: In table 12, there is decrease of forces. Not increase. Otherwise, you should refer that the tensile stress increases. you should explain it better.

Comment 4:The conclusionς are brief in length. Write more sentences and more analytically. Also the conclusions should try to mention some form of practical application of the results. Or further research that can lead to a practical use.

Reviewer#2 Comments:

The authors have addressed all the comments raised by the reviewers in a comprehensive and satisfactory manner. The revised manuscript is well-written, well-structured, and presents a clear and compelling argument. I am happy to recommend this article for publication.

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

[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.

Failure Mechanism of Soft– hard- interbedded Rock Slopes in Cold Regions：Numerical Simulation and Theoretical Analysis

PONE-D-24-28810R3

Dear Dr. Zhang,

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,

Davood Fereidooni, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments: