Dear Dr. Mohammadi,

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 revise accordingly

Please submit your revised manuscript by Apr 24 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.

• 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,

Zhengmao Li

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 update your submission to use the PLOS LaTeX template. The template and more information on our requirements for LaTeX submissions can be found at http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/latex.

3. 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.

4. When completing the data availability statement of the submission form, you indicated that you will make your data available on acceptance. We strongly recommend all authors decide on a data sharing plan before acceptance, as the process can be lengthy and hold up publication timelines. Please note that, though access restrictions are acceptable now, your entire data will need to be made freely accessible if your manuscript is accepted for publication. This policy applies to all data except where public deposition would breach compliance with the protocol approved by your research ethics board. If you are unable to adhere to our open data policy, please kindly revise your statement to explain your reasoning and we will seek the editor's input on an exemption. Please be assured that, once you have provided your new statement, the assessment of your exemption will not hold up the peer review process.

[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?

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

Reviewer #1: I have carefully reviewed this manuscript; the following are my comments and suggestions.

Comments and Suggestions

1. There are two recent studies that substantially extend the extent literature on cryptocurrencies. Ali, Khurram, and Sensoy (2025) indicate the importance of cryptocurrencies in portfolio optimization (risk reduction), whereas Ali, Du, and Majeed (2025) indicate the importance of matching trading periods while estimating intermarket interconnectedness. While the former will help the authors to improve the first paragraph of the Introduction Section, the latter will help the authors to improve the second paragraph. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40854-024-00686-4; https://doi.org/10.1016/j.frl.2025.107016

2. The authors have discussed dome seminal studies that have employed VaR and CVaR; however, it is important to mention studies that have recently employed these methods. In the wake of consistently evolving econometric tools to understand diversification, it is fundamental to discuss recent high-quality work that has used this method. I suggest taking guidance from the following study to strengthen the use of the VaR and CVaR methods (https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2023.114137 & https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ribaf.2022.101768 ).

3. The above four studies will also help the authors to improve the Literature Review section of the study.

4. Sections 3 and 4 occupy nearly 80% of the manuscript size, indicating sections are not well-distributed.

5. Please reduce the size of the study; it is very lengthy and hard to keep interest while reading it.

6. The authors need to discuss the limitations of the study.

7. Finally, discuss some practical implications of the study.

Overall, once my comments are addressed, the manuscript can be reconsidered for publication. Good luck!

Reviewer #2: This paper proposes a two - stage framework to enhance the performance of cryptocurrency portfolios. The research topic is of practical significance, and the research methods are relatively systematic. My comments are as follows:

It is advisable to conduct comparative experiments by comparing with other methods applicable to cryptocurrency asset pre - selection, so as to highlight the advantages and innovativeness of the method proposed in this paper.

In the dataset, the data of the asset ONDO only covers 330 days, which is different from the 379 - day data of other assets. This may seriously affect the reliability of statistical analysis and the universality of conclusions.

When constructing the Credibilistic CVaR model, the trapezoidal fuzzy variables are obtained based on expert opinions. It is necessary to consider combining market data and objective algorithms to determine the fuzzy variables, or adding multiple sets of expert opinions for comparative analysis to reduce subjectivity and enhance the objectivity and accuracy of the model.

When presenting the results of asset pre - selection and portfolio optimization, the economic significance and practical application value of the results are insufficiently elaborated.

In addition to the mentioned uncertainties and market volatility, the significant impacts of regulatory policy changes, technological innovations, and other factors on the cryptocurrency market should also be considered.

Although a review of relevant literature has been carried out, the exploration in some fields is not in - depth enough. It is necessary to further analyze the limitations of existing research more deeply and clearly explain how this research can address these issues specifically, highlighting the necessity and innovativeness of the research.

It is recommended to supplement the following literature (not mine) 10.1109/TCSI.2024.3523339

10.1109/TII.2024.3495785

**********

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: Yes:  Fahad Ali

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.

A Two-Stage Framework for Enhancing Cryptocurrency Portfolio Performance: Integrating Credibilistic CVaR Criterion with a Novel Asset Preselection Approach

PONE-D-25-06239R1

Dear Dr. Mohammadi,

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,

Zhengmao Li

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

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??>

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

**********

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

The PLOS Data policy

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

**********

Reviewer #1: The authors have addressed my comments, and the manuscript is substantially improved. However, I suggest carefully proofreading and reducing the size of the abstract. Besides this, I have no more comments, and it can be considered for publication. Good luck!

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

**********

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

**********