PONE-D-25-09536Study on Estimation Method for Coal Burst Force Sources in Extremely Thick Coal Seams and Quantitative Evaluation of Coal Burst RiskPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Zhu,

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 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,

Kang Wang, 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. Thank you for stating the following financial disclosure:

“This work is financially supported by the Key Science and Technology Program of the Ministry of Emergency Management (2024EMST070702), the Natural Science Foundation of Hebei Province of China (E2023508021) and the Fundamental Research Funds for the Central University (3142024005, 3142021002).”

Please state what role the funders took in the study.  If the funders had no role, please state: "The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript."

If this statement is not correct you must amend it as needed.

Please include this amended Role of Funder statement in your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf.

4. Thank you for stating the following in the Acknowledgments Section of your manuscript:

“This work is financially supported by the Key Science and Technology Program of the Ministry of Emergency Management (2024EMST070702), the Natural Science Foundation of Hebei Province of China (E2023508021) and the Fundamental Research Funds for the Central University (3142024005, 3142021002).’

We note that you have provided funding information that is currently declared in your Funding Statement. However, funding information should not appear in the Acknowledgments section or other areas of your manuscript. We will only publish funding information present in the Funding Statement section of the online submission form.

Please remove any funding-related text from the manuscript and let us know how you would like to update your Funding Statement. Currently, your Funding Statement reads as follows:

“This work is financially supported by the Key Science and Technology Program of the Ministry of Emergency Management (2024EMST070702), the Natural Science Foundation of Hebei Province of China (E2023508021) and the Fundamental Research Funds for the Central University (3142024005, 3142021002).”

Please include your amended statements within your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf.

5. In this instance it seems there may be acceptable restrictions in place that prevent the public sharing of your minimal data. However, in line with our goal of ensuring long-term data availability to all interested researchers, PLOS’ Data Policy states that authors cannot be the sole named individuals responsible for ensuring data access (http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-acceptable-data-sharing-methods).

Data requests to a non-author institutional point of contact, such as a data access or ethics committee, helps guarantee long term stability and availability of data. Providing interested researchers with a durable point of contact ensures data will be accessible even if an author changes email addresses, institutions, or becomes unavailable to answer requests.

Before we proceed with your manuscript, please also provide non-author contact information (phone/email/hyperlink) for a data access committee, ethics committee, or other institutional body to which data requests may be sent. If no institutional body is available to respond to requests for your minimal data, please consider if there any institutional representatives who did not collaborate in the study, and are not listed as authors on the manuscript, who would be able to hold the data and respond to external requests for data access? If so, please provide their contact information (i.e., email address). Please also provide details on how you will ensure persistent or long-term data storage and availability.

[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

Reviewer #3: Yes

Reviewer #4: No

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: I Don't Know

Reviewer #4: 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

Reviewer #3: Yes

Reviewer #4: 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

Reviewer #3: Yes

Reviewer #4: 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: Your manuscript presents a comprehensive study on estimating coal burst force sources in extremely thick coal seams beneath massive gravel rock. However, enhancing the clarity of the methodology, broadening the discussion's practical context, and providing further justification for certain methodological choices would strengthen the paper.

1、 Explicitly list the key assumptions made in the stress estimation models (e.g., load distribution assumptions, boundary conditions). This would help readers better understand the limitations and applicability of your models.

2、 While the discussion section touches on future research directions, a more detailed discussion on the limitations of the current approach (e.g., uncertainty in tectonic stress quantification) would be valuable.

3、 Consider adding more detailed captions and ensuring that all axes, scales, and legends are clearly explained.

4、 While the introduction explains the significance of the study, it could benefit from more in-depth references to recent research in the past five years. Highlight gaps in the literature this study addresses, such as: compgeo.2024.106095; tafmec.2024.104691; fuel.2023.129584

5、 Emphasize how the quantitative approach can bridge the gap between theoretical predictions and on-site applications in complex geological settings.

6、 Highlight avenues for future research, such as addressing the challenges of non-linear interactions between different stress sources.

7、 Strengthen your discussion by comparing your method not only with traditional qualitative approaches but also with emerging quantitative methods.

8、 The comparison with existing coal burst risk evaluation methods is a strength. Expanding this section to discuss potential scenarios where your method performs particularly well (or less well) compared to conventional methods could further highlight its advantages.

Reviewer #2: 1- The title should be improved.

2- The objectives and the rationale of the study are recommended to be clearly stated.

3- The concluding remarks of the abstract are not well-written. It's merely the repetition of the objectives and title of the manuscript. Please add method limitations and justification to the abstract.

4- The innovation of using this study is not very clear. I do not see a clear reason that this study can perform better than others. Why did the authors choose the method for this study?

5- The necessity & novelty of the manuscript should be presented and stressed in the "Introduction" section.

6- The application/theory/method/study reported is not in sufficient detail to allow for its replicability and/or reproducibility. Therefore, it is suggested to make it clear to show all steps to build the model.

7- The problem statement and gap study are not clear.

8- The method is not clear. Therefore, it must be shown and clarified to show all steps.

9- The interpretation of results and study conclusions are not supported by providing the reasons behind why they show that. Therefore, it is recommended to deepen the discussion.

10- It is recommended to emphasize the strengths of the study clearly.

11- The limitations of the study should be stated.

12- The manuscript structure, flow, or writing needs some improvements.

13- The manuscript is benefit from language editing. The English of the paper is readable; however, I would suggest the authors to have it checked preferably by a native English-speaking person to avoid any mistakes.

14- I noticed that the conclusion section tends to repeat the abstract and results. The conclusion paragraph should be short, impactful, and direct the reader to this research's next steps and opportunities.

15- It will be nice to add some new references to show that your study is updated, such as: Zhou, Zhanxin, and Ruibo Wu. "Stock Price Prediction Model Based on Convolutional Neural Networks." Journal of Industrial Engineering and Applied Science 2.4 (2024): 1-7; Alakbari, Fahd Saeed, et al. "Prediction of critical total drawdown in sand production from gas wells: Machine learning approach." The Canadian Journal of Chemical Engineering 101.5 (2023): 2493-2509 .; Alakbari, Fahd Saeed, et al. "Deep learning approach for robust prediction of reservoir bubble point pressure." ACS omega 6.33 (2021): 21499-21513 .; Alakbari, Fahd Saeed, et al. "A gated recurrent unit model to predict Poisson's ratio using deep learning." Journal of Rock Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering 16.1 (2024): 123-135; Zhou, Zhanxin, and Ruibo Wu. "Stock Price Prediction Model Based on Convolutional Neural Networks." Journal of Industrial Engineering and Applied Science 2.4 (2024): 1-7; Wu, Ruibo, Tao Zhang, and Feng Xu. "Cross-Market Arbitrage Strategies Based on Deep Learning." Academic Journal of Sociology and Management 2.4 (2024): 20-26. Alakbari, Fahd Saeed, et al. "Prediction of critical total drawdown in sand production from gas wells: Machine learning approach." The Canadian Journal of Chemical Engineering 101.5 (2023): 2493-2509 . Hassan, Anas M., et al. "A new insight into smart water assisted foam SWAF technology in carbonate rocks using artificial neural networks ANNs." Offshore Technology Conference Asia. OTC, 2022.

Reviewer #3: Dear Authors,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript, "Study on Estimation Method for Coal Burst Force Sources in Extremely Thick Coal Seams and Quantitative Evaluation of Coal Burst Risk," to PLOS ONE. Your research tackles a pressing challenge in underground mining safety—preventing coal bursts in thick coal seams—and your work at Qianqiu Coal Mine in Henan, China, offers valuable insights. The combination of stress estimation, microseismic monitoring, numerical modeling, and field validation is impressive, and your focus on enhancing mine safety is both timely and impactful. To help strengthen your manuscript and maximize its contribution to the field, I’d like to offer some suggestions for improvement.

1. Introduction

1. What Are "Extremely Thick Coal Seams"?

In the introduction, please specify what "extremely thick" means in your study—perhaps a thickness range (e.g., >10 meters?)—so readers can better understand the context of your work.

2. Simplify Technical Descriptions

The sections on stress estimation and microseismic monitoring are detailed but dense. A simpler explanation or a concise summary of these methods would improve readability while keeping the technical depth intact.

2. Methodology

3. Quantifying Tectonic Stress

Tectonic stress plays a big role in coal bursts, but your study treats it in a semi-quantitative way. Could you include more precise measurements, perhaps using geophysical data or advanced models, to quantify its impact?

4. Why These Microseismic Parameters?

You use fracture angles and strike spans from microseismic data to assess coal burst risk. Could you explain why these specific parameters were chosen and how they predict bursts?

5. Comparing to Other Models

Your new risk evaluation model is exciting, but how does it stack up against existing tools like BurstRisk? A direct comparison would highlight what makes your approach stand out.

3. results

6. Your work fits into a global effort to improve mine safety. Comparing it to studies like the one on roadway rockbursts in deep coal seams (e.g., this study) would show how your research builds on or differs from what’s out there.

7. Since you’ve developed a quantitative risk evaluation method, explaining how it improves on semi-quantitative systems (like BurstRisk) would strengthen your case.

8. If possible, include datasets like microseismic readings or stress measurements as supplementary files. This would let others verify or build on your work.

9. If you used proprietary tools or data, consider suggesting open-source alternatives or other ways readers could replicate your results.

4. Practical Applications and Limitations

10. You mention pre-cracking massive gravel rock to reduce burst risks—could you give more details on practical techniques or tools that could make this happen?

11. Adding a section on your study’s limitations (e.g., assumptions in your stress models or challenges with tectonic stress) would give a fuller picture and point the way for future work.

5. Better Visuals

12. Diagrams like stress maps or risk zones would make your findings easier to grasp.

13. A table summarizing key results—say, how different stress factors contribute or how your predictions match real data—would help readers quickly see your main points.

Reviewer #4: 1. In the Introduction section, rockbursts phenomenon is described in general terms focusing on potential hazards. However, the rationale for the study is expressed through subjective judgments about the importance of the quantitative estimation approach/method. Instead of discussing the weaknesses of alternative approaches/methods, the authors focused on presenting the potential benefits of their proposed method. So noone will know about the rationale need for using quantitative estimation method.

Although the aim of the study is presented in sufficient detail, due to the lack of a discussion on the rationale makes Introduction can be accepted absent.

2. In the study frequent refereneces to previous/other reserches on the subject (e.g., “experts and scholars have conducted extensive research and field practices,” L573–574), these studies are not properly cited.

3. Some of the approaches used in calculating effective stresses appear to be based on general geometry-weight relationships (stress calcualtions), while others seem to be constructed based on the authors’ assumptions. The rationale for using these assumption-based formulations is not clearly stated. Consequently, due to the calculations they are based on, it can be argued that the study lacks a solid theoretical foundation.

4.The manuscript appears to be an attempt to merge two different and largely unrelated topics. The title, “Study on Estimation Method for Coal Burst Force Sources in Extremely Thick Coal Seams and Quantitative Evaluation,” suggests that the primary focus is on the estimation of coal burst forces. However, the Conclsuions section presents only the findings from a microseismic monitoring study. Thus, not only does the main theme lack a sound theoretical foundation and rely on hypothetical assumptions, but the microseismic monitoring work—although potentially worthy of a separate study—is only loosely related and is presented at a purely technical note level. Despite a limited connection, these are conceptually distinct topics that should be addressed separately.

Depending on the above reasons, it would be appropriate to reject this manuscript.

In addition, there are issues of carelessness in terms of formatting throughout the article.

Examples:

1. A subheading appears as: “1111111Stress Analysis of the F16 Reverse Fault and Phase Boundary Zone.”

2. There is insufficient spacing between tables/figures and the following paragraphs.

**********

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

Reviewer #3: No

Reviewer #4: No

**********

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

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

PONE-D-25-09536R1Estimation Method for Impact Force Source in Thick Coal Seams and Its Application in Rockburst Risk QuantificationPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Zhu,

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 Jun 14 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,

Kang Wang, 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 #3: 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 #3: Partly

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #3: 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 #3: 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 #3: No

**********

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 #3: Paper Title: "Estimation Method for Impact Force Source in Thick Coal Seams and Its Application in Rockburst Risk Quantification"

1. Rewrite abstract’s conclusion to focus on key findings (e.g., better warnings) instead of repeating goals.

2. Method section is too complex with heavy math (e.g., equations 1–7). Add a simple diagram or step-by-step list to explain the model.

3. Clarify how microseismic parameters (fracture angle, strike span) directly link to rockburst risk, possibly with a picture.

4. Tectonic stress estimates (Section 3.2) are semi-quantitative and lack precision. Suggest specific tools (e.g., seismic tomography, in-situ stress measurements) for future work.

5. Note that assuming symmetric stress around faults oversimplifies things; mention potential fault variations (e.g., dip angle changes).

6. Compare the method to tools like BurstRisk in a table, showing when it works best or worst (e.g., in thinner seams or simpler mines).

7. Replace irrelevant references (e.g., Zhou & Wu, 2024 on stock prices) with recent rockburst or mining studies.

8. Improve figure captions (e.g., Fig. 4) to explain axes, scales, and why energy levels matter.

9. Add a table showing how much each stress type (gravel rock, faults, mining) contributes to total risk.

10. Specify which mine conditions (e.g., steep seams, high fault density) might limit the method’s effectiveness.

11. Explain how errors in microseismic data accuracy could impact results.

Recommendation: Minor Revisions Needed

**********

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 #3: 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.

Estimation Method for Impact Force Source in Thick Coal Seams and Its Application in Rockburst Risk Quantification

PONE-D-25-09536R2

Dear Dr. Zhu,

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,

Kang Wang, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments: