Predicting mechanical properties of CFRP composites using data-driven models with comparative analysis

Ammar Alsheghri; Amna Alhammadi; Vassilis Drakonakis; Haris Doumanidis; Imad Barsoum; Maher Maalouf

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0319787

Peer Review History

Original SubmissionSeptember 16, 2024
16 Sep 2024 Author Response https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0319787.r001
18 Dec 2024 Decision Letter - Mohammadreza Vafaei, Editor PONE-D-24-41071Predicting Mechanical Properties of CFRP Composites Using Data-Driven Models with Comparative AnalysisPLOS ONE Dear Dr. Maalouf, Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process. ============================== ACADEMIC EDITOR: Please read and address all comments provided by the reviewers. Special attention should be given to the literature review and the details of the experiments. Note that you are not required to cite all the papers requested by the reviewers. Only if you find them relevant should you add them to your manuscript. Reason for the changes<svg aria-hidden="true" class="transition-transform ms-auto" fill="currentColor" focusable="false" height="8" style="display: inline-block; user-select: none; vertical-align: text-bottom; overflow: visible;" viewbox="0 0 12 12" width="8"><path d="M6 8.825c-.2 0-.4-.1-.5-.2l-3.3-3.3c-.3-.3-.3-.8 0-1.1.3-.3.8-.3 1.1 0l2.7 2.7 2.7-2.7c.3-.3.8-.3 1.1 0 .3.3.3.8 0 1.1l-3.2 3.2c-.2.2-.4.3-.6.3Z"></path></svg> ============================== Please submit your revised manuscript by Feb 01 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, Mohammadreza Vafaei, 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 PLOS ONE has specific guidelines on code sharing for submissions in which author-generated code underpins the findings in the manuscript. In these cases, we expect all author-generated code to be made available without restrictions upon publication of the work. Please review our guidelines at https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/materials-and-software-sharing#loc-sharing-code and ensure that your code is shared in a way that follows best practice and facilitates reproducibility and reuse. 3. We note you have included a table to which you do not refer in the text of your manuscript. Please ensure that you refer to Table 1 in your text; if accepted, production will need this reference to link the reader to the Table. 4. Please include captions for your Supporting Information files at the end of your manuscript, and update any in-text citations to match accordingly. Please see our Supporting Information guidelines for more information: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/supporting-information. [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: N/A ****** 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: Following points should be considered: • Please mention the size of the dataset used in training the models in the Abstract. • From Section 1. Introduction: "In polymerreinforced composites, the polymer matrix controls thermal and chemical properties, while the reinforcing material determines the mechanical properties" → Please provide some examples of these "thermal and chemical properties" and "mechanical properties" • From Section 1. Introduction: "replacing metal-based materials in low-temperature applications due to these properties" → Please explain what these "low-temperature applications" are. • From Introduction: "More recently, machine learning (ML) has become widely spread in predicting the mechanical properties of composite materials, significantly saving experimental and computational costs[11,12]" → At this point the authors should provide a much more comprehensive list of relevant publications since ML methods have been extensively used in the predictive modeling of composite materials. I recommend adding the following recent publications: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-021-85963-3 https://doi.org/10.3390/ma16134578 https://doi.org/10.1002/pc.27969 https://doi.org/10.3390/biomimetics9090544 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compositesb.2023.111132 • From Introduction: "Pathan et al. [17] found that the time required to predict the mechanical properties using a machine learning model is 3600 times faster than using a finite element model." → This statement should be justified and further details should be provided about the measurement procedure. Although predicting the behavior of a model using trained models can be a fast process, the ML process also includes the data collection, preprocessing and model validation stages. Looking at the issue from this perspective, I don't think ML process is 3600 times faster than finite element analysis. Although finite element model building can be a time consuming process, once a model has been validated, running structural analysis simulations is a very fast process as well. Therefore, I recommend including more detailed information about in what way the ML process is faster than finite element analysis. • I recommend, if available, including the actual pictures of the experimental setup in addition to drawing in Figure 1 and Figure 3. Also, Figure 1 appears 2 times. Please remove one of them. • In addition to hardware used in training the models, please also mention the software platform used such as Scikit learn, Tensorflow etc. • In the Discussion section the authors are proposing predictive formulas which should be done earlier in the text. I suggest moving that part into Results section or into a separate section before Discussion. Reviewer #2: Alsheghri et al. applied ML models to predict polymer matrix-carbon reinforced composites (PMCRC). The input variables were manufacturing method and volume fiber content, whereas the output variables were 3-point flexural strength and modulus and the mode II energy release rate. Prediction metrics was improved after including manufacturing type. However, experimental details are missing; the literature review left out some recent developments / currently accepted methods and needs more critique of the current state. Some other issues need to be resolved before it can be considered for publication. Experimental details are missing: load cell, extensometer/deflection gauge model, mouth opening gauge/crack length measurement device, acquisition and processing software. Fig 1, Fig 2 are repeated. It probably happened when you duplicate the marker in MS-Word. Fig 8b ... Feature premutatio .... Are the bending samples manufactured/tested according to a standard? Please state that explicitly. Major The literature revision seems to focus on speed prediction rather than prediction accuracy. Furthermore, some accepted models, such as the Voight rule or micromechanics, are used for the same tasks that are not mentioned. The authors performed tensile tests but omitted the tensile elastic modulus from calculation and prediction. Such comparison between flexural and tensile elastic modulus is always helpful, with the significance of each one depending on the PMCRC´s specific application. The authors left recent advances in mechanical properties prediction using ML (Prada 2024), who used some of the models tested here for similar tasks. They use non-linear algorithms, which proved to be a better solution when predicting strength and elasticity (Prada 2024). Moreover, Random Forest and NN, are known for overfitting data. The energy release rate is crucial for fail-safe designs. It makes sense that the manufacturing method impacts it, as the matrix-fiber bond might be enhanced at higher pressures. The predictions shown in Figs 7 and 8 seem very tight below 1000 kJ/m^2 but scattered above that value. Without experimental details on how it was calculated, one cannot venture to guess the origin of the high dispersion at higher rates. I urge the authors to discuss such behavior. * Prada-Parra, D. Supervised Machine Learning Models for Mechanical Properties Prediction in Additively Manufactured Composites. Appl. Sci. 2024, 14, 7009. https://doi.org/10.3390/app14167009 ******** 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.0319787.r002
Revision 1
23 Jan 2025 Author Response We thank the editor for their feedback. The following items are being submitted with the revised manuscript: • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). • A marked-up copy of the 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'. Comments 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 Response - The references style was updated to the Vancouver style as recommended by the journal. - Line numbering has been incorporated. - Title and author affiliations formatted according to the style. - “Figure” replaced with “Fig” 2. Please note that PLOS ONE has specific guidelines on code sharing for submissions in which author-generated code underpins the findings in the manuscript. In these cases, we expect all author-generated code to be made available without restrictions upon publication of the work. Please review our guidelines at https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/materials-and-software-sharing#loc-sharing-code and ensure that your code is shared in a way that follows best practice and facilitates reproducibility and reuse. Response Our data has been published and we are happy to provide the code upon request. The following section has been added: Data availability The data used in this manuscript is publicly available at Mendeley Data [69] and python codes will be made available upon request. 3. We note you have included a table to which you do not refer in the text of your manuscript. Please ensure that you refer to Table 1 in your text; if accepted, production will need this reference to link the reader to the Table. Response This has been fixed in the revised manuscript as: Table 1 lists the nomenclature for all the abbreviations used in this manuscript. 4. Please include captions for your Supporting Information files at the end of your manuscript, and update any in-text citations to match accordingly. Please see our Supporting Information guidelines for more information: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/supporting-information. Response - Supplementary materials document has been renamed to “Supporting information”. - Captions were included for the supporting information in the revised version of the manuscript. Responses to reviewers: We thank the reviewers for the excellent feedback which will improve the quality of our paper. We here try our best to respond to the comments of the reviewer one-by-one. We also made highlighted modifications inside the manuscript, to directly address the comments of the reviewers. Reviewer #1: Following points should be considered • Please mention the size of the dataset used in training the models in the Abstract The sample size has now been included in the abstract of the revised version. • From Section 1. Introduction: "In polymer reinforced composites, the polymer matrix controls thermal and chemical properties, while the reinforcing material determines the mechanical properties" → Please provide some examples of these "thermal and chemical properties" and "mechanical properties" Examples have been added in the revised version as recommended by the reviewer: In general, for polymer-reinforced composites, the polymer matrix controls thermal and chemical properties such as glass transition temperature, corrosion resistance, and chemical stability [2,3], while the reinforcing material controls mechanical properties such as tensile strength and impact resistance [4–7]. • From Section 1. Introduction: "replacing metal-based materials in low-temperature applications due to these properties" → Please explain what these "low-temperature applications" are. Explanations have been added in the revised version as suggested by the reviewer: “Due to these properties, carbon fiber-reinforced polymer (CFRP) composites have been crucial in replacing metal-based materials in low-temperature applications such as thermal insulators [9], electronic packaging [10], biomedical implants [11], and cryogenic systems [12].” • From Introduction: "More recently, machine learning (ML) has become widely spread in predicting the mechanical properties of composite materials, significantly saving experimental and computational costs[11,12]" → At this point the authors should provide a much more comprehensive list of relevant publications since ML methods have been extensively used in the predictive modeling of composite materials. I recommend adding the following recent publications: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-021-85963-3 https://doi.org/10.3390/ma16134578 https://doi.org/10.1002/pc.27969 https://doi.org/10.3390/biomimetics9090544 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compositesb.2023.111132 We agree with the reviewer. The suggested recent publications have been added to the revised version of the manuscript with additional text: “More recently, machine learning (ML) has become widely spread in predicting the mechanical properties of composite materials, significantly saving experimental and computational costs [6,7,20–24]. The application of ML also provided efficient solutions for the traditional difficulty associated with carrying out computational mechanics simulations involving multiscale and nonlinear behavior common in composites [6,7,22–24].” • From Introduction: "Pathan et al. [17] found that the time required to predict the mechanical properties using a machine learning model is 3600 times faster than using a finite element model." → This statement should be justified and further details should be provided about the measurement procedure. Although predicting the behavior of a model using trained models can be a fast process, the ML process also includes the data collection, preprocessing and model validation stages. Looking at the issue from this perspective, I don't think ML process is 3600 times faster than finite element analysis. Although finite element model building can be a time consuming process, once a model has been validated, running structural analysis simulations is a very fast process as well. Therefore, I recommend including more detailed information about in what way the ML process is faster than finite element analysis. The number reported “i.e. 3600” here refers only to the prediction stage after building and validating the FE and ML models. We have added more explanation to the revised version of the manuscript as recommended by the reviewer. “Pathan et al. [29] found that the time required to predict five mechanical properties using a machine learning model was about 0.5 seconds, which was 3600 times faster than using a finite element model that took about 30 minutes to make the same predictions. This excludes the time required to build and validate the FE model or the time required for data collection, preprocessing, training and validation of the ML model.” • I recommend, if available, including the actual pictures of the experimental setup in addition to drawing in Figure 1 and Figure 3. Also, Figure 1 appears 2 times. Please remove one of them Pictures have been added as recommended. Please note that we are submitting the revised version of the article without the figures and attaching the figures separately. • In addition to hardware used in training the models, please also mention the software platform used such as Scikit learn, Tensorflow etc. Software packages have been added in the revised version of the manuscript: “Pandas, scipy, and scikit-learn python packages were used to process the data and build the ML models.” • In the Discussion section the authors are proposing predictive formulas which should be done earlier in the text. I suggest moving that part into Results section or into a separate section before Discussion. We move the predictive formulas with the corresponding text to end of the Results section as suggested by the reviewer. Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0319787.r003
2 Feb 2025 Decision Letter - Mohammadreza Vafaei, Editor PONE-D-24-41071R1Predicting Mechanical Properties of CFRP Composites Using Data-Driven Models with Comparative AnalysisPLOS ONE Dear Dr. Maalouf, Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process. ACADEMIC EDITOR: Please check the English language and consistency of the symbols used in the manuscript. Please submit your revised manuscript by Mar 19 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, Mohammadreza Vafaei, 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: Please check the English language and consistency of the symbols used in the manuscript. [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: N/A ****** 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: (No Response) Reviewer #2: No ****** 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: (No Response) Reviewer #2: The authors submitted a revised version. They addressed all observations and concerns raised in the first draft. I recommend it for publication upon checking English spelling, such as: L396. “mode II release rate” should not go in capital letters. Furthermore, please make consistent its capitalization. Eq (15). there is a ++ L564 gneralizable ****** 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. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0319787.r004
Revision 2
3 Feb 2025 Author Response Reviewer #1: (No Response) Reviewer #2: The authors submitted a revised version. They addressed all observations and concerns raised in the first draft. I recommend it for publication upon checking English spelling, such as: L396. “mode II release rate” should not go in capital letters. Furthermore, please make consistent its capitalization. Eq (15). there is a ++ L564 generalizable We thank the reviewer for noticing these details. We have corrected them all and fixed some other minor English issues in the revised manuscript. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0319787.r005
9 Feb 2025 Decision Letter - Mohammadreza Vafaei, Editor Predicting Mechanical Properties of CFRP Composites Using Data-Driven Models with Comparative Analysis PONE-D-24-41071R2 Dear Dr. Maher Maalouf 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, Mohammadreza Vafaei, 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 #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 #2: Yes ****** 3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? 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 #2: No ****** 5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English? PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here. Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 6. Review Comments to the Author Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters) Reviewer #2: The authors submitted a revised version. They addressed all observations and concerns raised in the first draft. I recommend it 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 #2: No ******** https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0319787.r006
Formally Accepted
Acceptance Letter - Mohammadreza Vafaei, Editor PONE-D-24-41071R2 PLOS ONE Dear Dr. Maalouf, 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. Mohammadreza Vafaei Academic Editor PLOS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0319787.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 .