PONE-D-24-58811Multi-objective Optimization of Wear Parameters of Hybrid Composites (LM6/ B4C/Fly ash) using Grey Relational AnalysisPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Salunkhe,

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 Mar 16 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,

Ranvir Singh Panwar

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 amend either the title on the online submission form (via Edit Submission) or the title in the manuscript so that they are identical. 3. Thank you for stating the following financial disclosure:  [to King Saud University for funding this work through Researchers Supporting Project number (RSP2025R164), King Saud University, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia].  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. We note that your Data Availability Statement is currently as follows: [All relevant data are within the manuscript and its Supporting Information files.] Please confirm at this time whether or not your submission contains all raw data required to replicate the results of your study. Authors must share the “minimal data set” for their submission. PLOS defines the minimal data set to consist of the data required to replicate all study findings reported in the article, as well as related metadata and methods (https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-minimal-data-set-definition). For example, authors should submit the following data: - The values behind the means, standard deviations and other measures reported;- The values used to build graphs;- The points extracted from images for analysis. Authors do not need to submit their entire data set if only a portion of the data was used in the reported study. If your submission does not contain these data, please either upload them as Supporting Information files or deposit them to a stable, public repository and provide us with the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers. For a list of recommended repositories, please see https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/recommended-repositories. If there are ethical or legal restrictions on sharing a de-identified data set, please explain them in detail (e.g., data contain potentially sensitive information, data are owned by a third-party organization, etc.) and who has imposed them (e.g., an ethics committee). Please also provide contact information for a data access committee, ethics committee, or other institutional body to which data requests may be sent. If data are owned by a third party, please indicate how others may request data access.

[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: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #1: No

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: 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: 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: Reviewer Comments

1. The manuscript fails to clearly establish the novelty of the study. Combining GRA with wear analysis is not a new approach, and the authors do not explain how their work differs from or advances previous studies.

2. The choice of LM6 as the matrix material and B4C and fly ash as reinforcements is not adequately justified. The manuscript lacks discussion on why these materials were chosen, particularly regarding their practical or industrial significance.

3. The methodology section lacks critical details about the stir casting process. Key parameters such as stirring speed, temperature control, and reinforcement feeding methods are missing, making the process non-reproducible.

4. The particle size, morphology, and distribution of B4C and fly ash were not characterized or reported. This raises concerns about the homogeneity of the composite.

5. The rationale behind the selection of specific wear test parameters (load, speed, and sliding distance) and their ranges is not provided. The relevance of these ranges to real-world conditions is unclear.

6. ANOVA results are presented but not adequately interpreted. The manuscript does not discuss whether the assumptions of ANOVA (e.g., normality, homoscedasticity) were validated.

7. The discussion section merely restates the results without providing a mechanistic explanation. For example, the effect of reinforcement on wear resistance is discussed without considering particle-matrix interactions, interfacial bonding, or load transfer mechanisms.

8. The influence of particle size and distribution on wear behaviour is completely ignored.

9. Figures, such as micrographs, lack adequate descriptions. There is no explanation of how the microstructural features relate to wear performance.

10. Tables lack clear labelling, and some critical information (e.g., units for certain variables) is missing. For example, in tables showing wear rate, the units are not explicitly stated.

11. Some references cited are outdated or irrelevant. Recent studies in wear behaviour of hybrid composites should be included.

12. The abstract and conclusion sections are repetitive and lack focus. They fail to highlight specific quantitative results or the practical implications of the findings.

13. The manuscript contains numerous grammatical errors and awkward phrasing, which hinder readability. For example, sentences are overly long and contain redundant information.

14. Equations and their variables are not consistently formatted or explained in the text.

15. While GRA is used for optimization, there is no cross-validation or verification of the results. Without experimental validation of the optimal parameter combination, the reliability of the optimization is questionable.

Reviewer #2: Manuscript Number: PONE-D-24-58811

Title: Multi-objective Optimization of Wear Parameters of Hybrid Composites (LM6 B4CFly ash) using Grey Relational Analysis

General comments: The investigations on the statistical approach of the wear properties of LM6/B4C/Fly ash composites is presented using. Stir casting was utilized to make aluminum matrix composites (AMCs) with 3%, 6%, and 9% of B4C/Fly ash particles. Furthermore, analysis of variance (ANOVA) was utilized to investigate the influence of input parameters on wear behavior by choosing "smaller is better" feature.

The article is well organized, fits the journal scope, and has a contribution. However, the following comments should be considered:

1. Unstructured abstract: The abstract should be presented in a structured format.

• Background: state why the study was done, the main aim and the nature of the study (retrospective review etc.).

• Methods: describe the methods used.

• Results: state the main findings, including important numerical values.

• Discussion: state the main conclusions, highlighting controversial or unexpected observations.

2. The authors should consider that:(i) an engineering application is described in detail that could benefit the presented analysis in the paper and (ii) new phenomena that are specific to the hybrid composites are assumed to be made of.

3. The author should point out the main contribution (in the introduction and abstract sections) of their work. What is new about it?

4. The authors need to arrange the equations appropriately with their numbering format. In addition, equations (1-3) must mention their references.

5. There are some results that are not well presented in terms of output. The authors should rearrange them and use appropriate format and style (for example, Figure 1. Title of the figure) for all figures.

6. The author should add physical explanations for the discussions.

7. Some advanced concepts should be referred to with adequate references for less experienced readers.

8. Conclusion can be summarized and focused only on the new outcomes.

9. There are many errors, so the authors need to check the grammar, typos, and errors in the manuscript.

In general, I do not recommend the article in its current form. If the author gives a convincing answer to the above items and discusses the innovation of the article, then a decision can be made about the article.

**********

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.

Attachments

Attachment

Submitted filename: Reviewer comments_Plos One.docx

Multi-objective Optimization of Wear Parameters of Hybrid Composites (LM6/ B4C/Fly ash) using Grey Relational Analysis

PONE-D-24-58811R1

Dear Dr. Salunkhe,

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,

Ranvir Singh Panwar

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

Reviewer #3: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #4: (No Response)

**********

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

Reviewer #3: Yes

Reviewer #4: Partly

**********

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

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

Reviewer #4: No

**********

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

Reviewer #3: Yes

Reviewer #4: 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

Reviewer #3: Yes

Reviewer #4: 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 #2: The authors have revised their paper seriously and completely. The manuscript is considerably improved, and the authors' response is also clear. This work could be recommended for publication.

Reviewer #3: Dear author,

All comments have been addressed. The manuscript may be accepted for publication.

Best wishes.

Reviewer #4: 1. The present paper and research analyzes the wear of a hybrid LM6/B4C/Fly Ash composite.

2. The research uses standard statistical methods (Taguchi and Grey Relational Analysis) for the simultaneous optimization of two responses: the specific wear rate (SWR) and the coefficient of friction (CoF).

3. The experimental part presented is relatively well structured.

4. The parameters are clearly presented, and a strong point of the work is the validation through confirmatory tests.

5. The topic is of interest and has applicability. The research has potential in the automotive and aerospace industries especially due to the low weight and low cost of the composite material.

6. However, the work has a limited scientific contribution.

7. The GRA method is already frequently used in the optimization of the tribological characteristics of composites.

8. The authors do not clearly demonstrate or specify what this study brings new compared to the existing literature.

9. The microstructural analysis is presented quite briefly.

10. No advanced characterizations are presented in the paper to support hypotheses regarding particle-matrix interactions or wear mechanisms.

11. Also, most of the time the discussion of the results is descriptive.

12. The description of the results is without interpretative depth. A critical comparison with other similar works is not clearly made.

13. The expression, even if it has been revised, is cumbersome and there are sections that could be clarified:

“Wear is an utmost phenomenon carried on by material dislocation and separation. Variations in size and a gradual decrease of weight over time are implied by wear.”

“Fly ash is light in weight, helping to maintain the low density of the aluminium matrix... making it suitable for various advanced engineering applications...”

“Determine the sequence of deviations. Determine the GRC. Find the GRG by taking the average of the GRC.”

“It was observed that as reinforcement increases, wear decreases. This is due to the load-bearing capacity of ceramic particles and increased hardness…”

14. In-depth statistical analyses are lacking (e.g. normality tests for ANOVA).

15. Graphs and tables are not fully explained.

16. The paper is methodologically correct. This has some applicative value.

17. The research is modest in terms of originality and scientific impact.

**********

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

Reviewer #3: No

Reviewer #4: No

**********