Swin-HSSAM: A green coffee bean grading method by Swin transformer

Yujie Jiao; Yuqing Zhao; Aoying Jia; Tianyun Wang; Jiashun Li; Kaiming Xiang; Hangyu Deng; Maochang He; Rui Jiang; Yue Zhang

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0322198

Peer Review History

Original SubmissionSeptember 16, 2024
16 Sep 2024 Author Response https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0322198.r001
29 Oct 2024 Decision Letter - Nattapol Aunsri, Editor -->PONE-D-24-41028-->-->Swin-HSSAM: A green coffee bean grading method by Swin Transformer-->-->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. ============================== ACADEMIC EDITOR: Please make sure that the manuscript follows the format of the journal. References must be properly cited before resubmitting the revised paper. ============================== Please submit your revised manuscript by Dec 13 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, Nattapol Aunsri, 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. PLOS requires an ORCID iD for the corresponding author in Editorial Manager on papers submitted after December 6th, 2016. Please ensure that you have an ORCID iD and that it is validated in Editorial Manager. To do this, go to ‘Update my Information’ (in the upper left-hand corner of the main menu), and click on the Fetch/Validate link next to the ORCID field. This will take you to the ORCID site and allow you to create a new iD or authenticate a pre-existing iD in Editorial Manager. 3. Please note that PLOS ONE has spec6ific guidelines on code sharing for submissions in which author-generated code underpins the findings in the manuscript. In these cases, all author-generated code must 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. 4. Funding Information and Financial Disclosure sections do not match: We note that the grant information you provided in the ‘Funding Information’ and ‘Financial Disclosure’ sections do not match. When you resubmit, please ensure that you provide the correct grant numbers for the awards you received for your study in the ‘Funding Information’ section. 5. Please provide a complete Data Availability Statement in the submission form, ensuring you include all necessary access information or a reason for why you are unable to make your data freely accessible. If your research concerns only data provided within your submission, please write "All data are in the manuscript and/or supporting information files" as your Data Availability Statement. 6. 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: Yes ******** -->2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? --> Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ****** -->3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available? The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.--> Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: 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: 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: "Swin-HSSAM: A Green Coffee Bean Grading Method by Swin Transformer" presents a deep learning-based model for accurate coffee bean classification. Swin-HSSAM combines a Swin Transformer backbone with feature fusion via HS-FPN and SAM modules, and employs Fusion Loss to enhance performance. It outperforms models like AlexNet, VGG16, and ResNet50, achieving a 96.34% accuracy on a proprietary dataset and also performs well on a public dataset. The model offers a promising solution for automating coffee bean grading and may extend to other agricultural products. The shortcoming include: 1. Lack of broader data validation: Although the paper uses a proprietary dataset and one public dataset for validation, the diversity and scale of the datasets are relatively limited. 2. Insufficient analysis of model complexity and computational cost: While the Swin Transformer, along with the HS-FPN and SAM modules, improves performance, the computational complexity and training time of these deep learning models may be high. 3. Lack of detail in defect bean classification: The paper mentions that the classification of defective beans in the grading process is somewhat vague, and while the authors introduce SCA-recommended categories, the classification of defective beans may still lack precision. NEED provide source code and dataset on Github on Next version. References: S. Hao et al., "ST-Double-Net: A Two-Stage Breast Tumor Classification Model Based on Swin Transformer and Weakly Supervised Target Localization," in IEEE Access, vol. 12, pp. 117921-117933, 2024, doi: 10.1109/ACCESS.2024.3445954. Reviewer #2: 1. The manuscript lacks a clear Data Availability Statement, as PLOS ONE's policy requires. While the authors mention using a proprietary dataset and a publicly available dataset from Kaggle, it is unclear if the proprietary dataset is made fully available without restriction. The authors should explicitly provide access to the data or clarify any restrictions related to its availability. Additionally, the dataset link provided seems to be incorrect or broken and should be reviewed. 2. The use of acronyms (e.g., mAP, SAM, HS-FPN) is consistent, but it would be helpful to define these terms more clearly early on for readers unfamiliar with the specific methods. 3. The authors should present a more comprehensive analysis in discussion part. 4. Before submitting your manuscript, I strongly recommend reviewing the formatting to align with PLOS ONE’s submission guidelines. Several formatting issues, such as missing references (e.g., "Error! Reference source not found"), should be corrected. These errors can significantly impact the professionalism and readability of the manuscript. Please refer to the journal's submission guidelines to ensure all requirements are met. ****** -->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.0322198.r002
Revision 1
12 Dec 2024 Author Response Response to Reviewers Reviewer #1: 1. Lack of broader data validation: Although the paper uses a proprietary dataset and one public dataset for validation, the diversity and scale of the datasets are relatively limited. Response�We have searched for a large number of datasets on the web, but the datasets that meet the requirements for the topic of our project on raw coffee bean identification are quite sparse, and the public and proprietary datasets used in the current article are already the larger datasets currently available, and we have asked relevant articles in the IEEE access journals about the possibility of sharing the datasets, but there has been no response. 2. Insufficient analysis of model complexity and computational cost: While the Swin Transformer, along with the HS-FPN and SAM modules, improves performance, the computational complexity and training time of these deep learning models may be high. Response�Comparison and analysis of model params and theo flops have been added to the experimental section, and corresponding parameter data have been added to the tables. 3. Lack of detail in defect bean classification: The paper mentions that the classification of defective beans in the grading process is somewhat vague, and while the authors introduce SCA-recommended categories, the classification of defective beans may still lack precision. Response�Details of defect categories and corresponding map accuracy and F1 values for each defect type have been added, tables and analyses have been added to the experimental section. Reviewer #2: 4. The manuscript lacks a clear Data Availability Statement, as PLOS ONE's policy requires. While the authors mention using a proprietary dataset and a publicly available dataset from Kaggle, it is unclear if the proprietary dataset is made fully available without restriction. The authors should explicitly provide access to the data or clarify any restrictions related to its availability. Additionally, the dataset link provided seems to be incorrect or broken and should be reviewed. Response�Proof of data availability has been added, links to the dataset have been fixed, and the specified pages can now be viewed. The shared and proprietary datasets used in the text are available and the code and some of the datasets have been shared to the web page (https://github.com/tonyalice77/Papers-related-to-swin-transformer-improvements/tree/master) The original files of the datasets are quite large and will be uploaded later, if you have any other questions, please contact us with 690822961@qq.com 5. The use of acronyms (e.g., mAP, SAM, HS-FPN) is consistent, but it would be helpful to define these terms more clearly early on for readers unfamiliar with the specific methods. Response�Notes have been added for each term where it first appears to help readers better understand the text 6. The authors should present a more comprehensive analysis in discussion part. Response�The discussion has been supplemented with a more detailed analysis of model performance, types of defective beans, and model interpretability, as well as an outlook on what needs to be added to the model and what can be improved afterward 7. Before submitting your manuscript, I strongly recommend reviewing the formatting to align with PLOS ONE’s submission guidelines. Several formatting issues, such as missing references (e.g., "Error! Reference source not found"), should be corrected. These errors can significantly impact the professionalism and readability of the manuscript. Please refer to the journal's submission guidelines to ensure all requirements are met. Response�Changes have been made to the manuscript in accordance with the PLOS submission guidelines, such as changing the citation format. Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0322198.r003
16 Dec 2024 Decision Letter - Nattapol Aunsri, Editor -->PONE-D-24-41028R1-->-->Swin-HSSAM: A green coffee bean grading method by Swin Transformer-->-->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. ============================== ACADEMIC EDITOR: The paper still has Errors in References, The messages "Error! Reference source not found" are all over the manuscript. I will not pass your revised paper to the reviewers unless these errors have been fixed. ============================== Please submit your revised manuscript by Jan 30 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, Nattapol Aunsri, Ph.D. Academic Editor PLOS ONE [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. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0322198.r004
Revision 2
17 Dec 2024 Author Response The citations have been reworked, and DOI numbers have been added to all but some of the ancient literature, of which the Chinese literature has also been specifically noted and given a DOI number. Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Response_to_Reviewers_auresp_2.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0322198.r005
22 Jan 2025 Decision Letter - Nattapol Aunsri, Editor -->PONE-D-24-41028R2-->-->Swin-HSSAM: A green coffee bean grading method by Swin Transformer-->-->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. ============================== ACADEMIC EDITOR: Please clearly define "Author contributions" of you paper. There are many more authors in the revised manuscript than the original one. Please clearly state the acceptable reasons as well. In addition, please also fix dataset availability of the paper. ============================== Please submit your revised manuscript by Mar 08 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, Nattapol Aunsri, 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. [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 paper title "Swin-HSSAM: A Green Coffee Bean Grading Method by Swin Transformer" has undergone careful revisions and is ready for acceptance. but lost two references. For ResNet� E. Jing, H. Zhang, Z. Li, Y. Liu, Z. Ji, and I. Ganchev, "ECG heartbeat classification based on an improved ResNet-18 model," Computational and Mathematical Methods in Medicine, vol. 2021, 2021. For Swin Transformer S. Hao et al., "ConvNeXt-ST-AFF: A Novel Skin Disease Classification Model Based on Fusion of ConvNeXt and Swin Transformer," IEEE Access, 2023. Reviewer #2: Thank you for submitting your revised manuscript I appreciate the effort you’ve put into addressing the feedback so far. However, I noticed that the proprietary dataset is still pending availability, which could make it difficult for others to reproduce your findings. I also noticed that the number of authors has significantly increased since the initial submission. Could you clarify the specific contributions of the newly added authors to ensure transparency? ****** -->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.0322198.r006
Revision 3
25 Feb 2025 Author Response Reviewer #1: 1. The paper title "Swin-HSSAM: A Green Coffee Bean Grading Method by Swin Transformer" has undergone careful revisions and is ready for acceptance. but lost two references. For ResNet� E. Jing, H. Zhang, Z. Li, Y. Liu, Z. Ji, and I. Ganchev, "ECG heartbeat classification based on an improved ResNet-18 model," Computational and Mathematical Methods in Medicine, vol. 2021, 2021. For Swin Transformer S. Hao et al., "ConvNeXt-ST-AFF: A Novel Skin Disease Classification Model Based on Fusion of ConvNeXt and Swin Transformer," IEEE Access, 2023. Response�We have already added these two references into the citation list. Reviewer #2: 2.I appreciate the effort you’ve put into addressing the feedback so far. However, I noticed that the proprietary dataset is still pending availability, which could make it difficult for others to reproduce your findings. I also noticed that the number of authors has significantly increased since the initial submission. Could you clarify the specific contributions of the newly added authors to ensure transparency? Response�After selecting 'accept' in the document, the dataset was made public. Therefore, we will complete the dataset once the acceptance is confirmed. The reason for adding authors is that our manuscript was not as detailed during the initial submission, hence only a few principal authors were included. It was always our intention to add these additional authors in subsequent revisions. The specific contributions of these authors are as follows: Hangyu Deng help assisted in resolving certain software issues during the image processing phase. Kaiming Xiang contributed to the investigative research on the grading standards of green coffee beans and the actual conditions of green coffee beans. Maochang He assisted in overseeing the rationality of the experiments and helped verify whether my tests served a cross-validating purpose. Rui Jiang helped verify whether my tests served a cross-validating purpose. Aoying Jia assisted in the analysis of data and the correction of errors in data comparison. Jiashun Li He was responsible for the proofreading and correction of the main program, and he assisted me in fixing bugs when they occurred. Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Response_to_Reviewers_auresp_3.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0322198.r007
18 Mar 2025 Decision Letter - Nattapol Aunsri, Editor Swin-HSSAM: A green coffee bean grading method by Swin Transformer PONE-D-24-41028R3 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, Nattapol Aunsri, 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: Yes ****** -->5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English? PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.--> Reviewer #2: Yes ****** -->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: Thank you for your responses .I see that the dataset link is now accessible with sample data. I trust that the full dataset will be made available in the final acceptance stage. To ensure transparency, please make sure all necessary data is uploaded and clearly referenced in the manuscript. ****** -->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.0322198.r008
Formally Accepted
Acceptance Letter - Nattapol Aunsri, Editor PONE-D-24-41028R3 PLOS ONE Dear Dr. Zhang, 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. Nattapol Aunsri Academic Editor PLOS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0322198.r009

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 .