PONE-D-25-00844Correlation cluster analysis of slope safety monitoring data in reservoir areasPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. yang,

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 May 09 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,

Ajaya Bhattarai

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. In your Methods section, please provide additional information regarding the permits you obtained for the work. Please ensure you have included the full name of the authority that approved the field site access and, if no permits were required, a brief statement explaining why.

Additional Editor Comments:

Major revision is necessary.

[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: No

Reviewer #2: Partly

**********

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: No

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: No

Reviewer #2: No

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: Summary:

In this study, statistical methods including ANOVA, correlation analysis, and hierarchical clustering are used to examine slope safety monitoring data from reservoir areas. In order to evaluate reservoir safety, the goal is to find correlations between monitoring indicators such as soil displacement, stress, and water levels.

Strengths:

The subject is pertinent and tackles important safety concerns about the stability of reservoir slopes.

The study gains shape by the application of statistical tools such as correlation analysis and hierarchical grouping.

A logical foundation for analysis is provided by the separation of monitoring parameters into internal and external elements.

In an effort to facilitate data comprehension, visualization tools including clustering diagrams and heatmaps were used.

Recommendations:

The abstract lacks details on the methods and findings, making it difficult for readers to grasp the study's significance. It should summarize key results and provide a clear explanation of the statistical methods used. Avoid ambiguous terms like "significant changes" and include quantifiable outcomes to make the abstract more informative and impactful.

The justification for the statistical techniques, such as the Welch/Brown-Forsythe post-hoc tests, is weak. There’s no explanation of whether the assumptions for ANOVA (normality and homoscedasticity) were validated. Additionally, the manuscript does not describe the sample size calculation or whether it was adequate for a robust analysis. Details on the data normalization process are also missing, along with an explanation of how outliers were handled. The clustering methods and thresholds used require clearer justification, as their relevance to the dataset is not evident.

The figures, particularly the clustering diagrams and correlation heatmaps, are of low resolution and lack clear annotations, making them difficult to interpret. Improving their quality and adding thorough legends would significantly enhance readability. The tables are also overcrowded and overwhelming. Consider combining related data into fewer, more focused summary tables or visual formats like bar graphs or heatmaps for better comprehension.

The discussion section is shallow, simply repeating the findings without critically analyzing them. It misses an opportunity to compare results with previous studies on reservoir slope safety, which would help contextualize the findings. Practical recommendations for safety management are not well-developed, and contradictions, such as the claim that seepage has minimal impact, need to be resolved with evidence or references. The limitations section is equally brief and does not address key issues like sample bias or incomplete data. Future directions should include validation in other reservoir settings and explore additional factors like water release.

Finally, the manuscript has numerous grammatical errors and awkward phrasing. Sentences should be rewritten for clarity, such as modifying “The inability of currently available methods to effectively predict dam failures in reservoirs suggests that the intrinsic causes of dam failures are still unknown.” A professional language edit would greatly improve the overall readability and coherence.

Conclusion:

Despite covering a significant subject, the manuscript has methodological flaws, inadequate data presentation, and little commentary. The conclusions are not sufficiently contextualized or supported, and the analysis is shallow. Its quality needs to be improved with significant updates.

Reviewer #2: This manuscript takes a reservoir in Shanxi as case example, to study the correlation cluster analysis of slope safety monitoring data in reservoir area. The topic is interesting, but the manuscript needs fully improvement, some suggestions are provided as follows:

1. Abbreviations should be clearly defined when it is firstly used.

2. Brief description for the reservoir should be added, such as the geological condition, structure constructions and the water level operation of the reservoir.

3. Figure quality should be improved, currently is with small size and low resolution.

4. Section or sub-section titles should be used with the correct content.

5. Methodology are just only referred in the main text, but not well described in details.

6. Units should be used with correct format, currently some are not used in correct format, all of them should be revised.

7. Some site photos of the reservoir can be added in the main text.

8. References are used with several types, please correct the references regard to the guide for authors.

**********

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.

Correlation cluster analysis of slope safety monitoring data in reservoir areas

PONE-D-25-00844R1

Dear Dr. Yang,

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,

Ajaya Bhattarai

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

The revised manuscript looks good.

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: Partly

**********

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 have carefully and thoroughly addressed all comments from the previous round. Methodological concerns—such as justifications for statistical tests, normality assessments, and variance homogeneity—were clarified with detailed results and incorporated directly into the revised manuscript. Figures have been substantially improved in resolution and annotation, and a new correlation summary table enhances the interpretability of the findings. Additionally, the discussion was significantly strengthened with comparisons to previous literature, practical recommendations for slope safety monitoring, and clearer acknowledgment of study limitations. The manuscript now presents a technically sound and clearly communicated study that contributes to the understanding of slope safety in reservoir areas.

Reviewer #2: My comments have been well responded, the quality of current revision has been improved, no any further comment.

**********

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

**********