Integrated evaluation and optimization of acid fracturing effectiveness in carbonate reservoirs: Experimental insights and field validation

Peng Lu; Songlei Li; Jinsong Liu; Nan Yuan; Heng Liu

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0327027

Peer Review History

Original SubmissionApril 14, 2025
Decision Letter - Karthik Kannan, Editor Dear Dr. Lu, 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 29 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, Karthik Kannan, 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. 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. 4. We note that your Data Availability Statement is currently as follows: Data is provided within the manuscript or supplementary 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. 5. 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. [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: Partly 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 Reviewer #1: No 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: Present paper describes a study that aims to “Integrated evaluation and optimization of acid fracturing effectiveness in carbonate reservoirs: experimental insights and field validation ”. While the study's topic is of relevance to this journal, the manuscript's content requires major revisions to improve its scientific quality. Upon careful review, I have identified several issues that need to be addressed before the paper can be accepted for publication. 1. Clarify the Concept of "Viscosity Gradient Modulation": In the abstract (Page 10), the phrase "alternating injections of high-viscosity gelled acid (>50 mPa·s) with low-viscosity reactive acid (<5 mPa·s)" is introduced but lacks clarity. Please elaborate on the procedure, the rationale behind alternating viscosities, and how this modulation specifically enhances etching heterogeneity, ideally with a simplified explanation for clarity. 2. Simplify Technical Language in the Introduction: The sentence "The development of carbonate reservoirs is constrained by strong heterogeneity and low porosity-permeability characteristics, particularly in complex media reservoirs where acid fracturing effectiveness exhibits significant variability" (Page 8) is overly complex. Please break it into shorter, clearer sentences to improve readability, e.g., "Carbonate reservoirs are highly heterogeneous and generally have low porosity and permeability. This heterogeneity often causes acid fracturing results to vary significantly." 3. Improve Consistency in Terminology: Throughout the manuscript, terms such as "acid-etched fracture conductivity" and "etched fractures" are used. For clarity, define these terms explicitly early on and ensure consistent usage. For example, specify whether "etched" always refers to acid-etched fractures with rough surfaces or channel-like features. 4. Specify the Laboratory Conditions More Clearly: In the description of laboratory experiments (Page 10), the injection rates are given as "0.1-5.0 m³/min" without context. Please specify the typical conditions used in the experiments, including why these ranges were chosen and how they relate to field conditions, to improve relevance and reproducibility. 5. Add a Brief Explanation of "Heterogeneity Indices": When discussing the "heterogeneity indices" (Page 10), the manuscript would benefit from a brief explanation of how these indices are calculated, what they represent physically, and their significance in predicting fracture conductivity. This will make the concepts accessible to a broader audience. 6. Enhance Description of Field Validation Data: On Page 11, the field validation with Well A1 reports a correlation coefficient of R²=0.85. Please provide more details about the data collection process, such as sampling frequency, data quality control, and how the pressure fluctuations were linked to natural fracture density. 7. Add Clarification in the "Operational Curve Analysis" Section: The description of how pressure curves are analyzed (Page 11) is somewhat vague. Please include a step-by-step explanation or a schematic diagram illustrating how these analyses are performed to quantify fracture network features. 8. Language Improvement – Grammatical Corrections in the Abstract: In the sentence "experimental verification shows 40%-60% increase in channel depth" (Page 10), change "shows" to "demonstrates" for a more formal tone. Additionally, "40%-60%" should be written as "40%–60%" to follow proper typographical standards. 9. Correct the Use of Parentheses for Numerical Data: On Page 8, the phrase "operation conditions: 150 °C/60 MPa" should be revised to "operational conditions (150 °C and 60 MPa)" for clarity and grammatical correctness. 10. Improve the Sentence Structure in the "Evaluation Metrics" Section: The sentence "conductivity measurements achieving ±8% reproducibility under ISO 13503-5 standards" (Page 10) is awkward. Rephrase to: "The conductivity measurements achieved a reproducibility of ±8%, in accordance with ISO 13503-5 standards." 11. Enhance the Explanation of "Reaction Kinetic Parameters": In the laboratory section (Page 10), mention briefly what specific parameters (e.g., reaction rate constants, activation energy) were measured, and how these parameters influence field performance predictions. This will help clarify the laboratory methodology. 12. Language – Correct Fragment and Verb Errors: In the sentence, "This systematic approach provides quantitative benchmarks for predicting field treatment outcomes, with conductivity measurements achieving ±8% reproducibility under ISO 13503-5 standards" (Page 10), consider separating into two sentences for clarity: "This systematic approach provides quantitative benchmarks for predicting field treatment outcomes. The conductivity measurements achieved ±8% reproducibility under ISO 13503-5 standards." 13. Make the Figures and Tables More Descriptive: Ensure all figures (e.g., fracture etching patterns, conductivity tests) are accompanied by detailed captions explaining what is shown, the methodology used, and key insights. Including these will greatly aid in understanding the experimental results. 14. Language – Address Sentence with Excessive Passive Voice: In the sentence "laboratory investigations quantified the reaction kinetics of diverse acid systems and conductivity of etched fractures" (Page 11), change to active voice for clarity: "We quantified the reaction kinetics of diverse acid systems and the conductivity of etched fractures through laboratory investigations." 15. Improve the Conclusion Section's Clarity and Simplicity: The concluding paragraph (Page 12) includes complex sentences like "The findings validate the core hypothesis... thereby providing theoretical foundations and practical guidance." Break this into shorter sentences to emphasize key outcomes. For example, "Our findings confirm that reservoir heterogeneity and fracture conductivity are critical factors. This provides both theoretical insights and practical strategies for optimizing acid fracturing." 16. Add and update the future research inn this article. Clearly articulate potential areas for future research, building on findings from this study and existing literature. Please add the below literatures and show how your techniques can be useful for their topics: Medicine Science: 10.1002/btm2.10752; 10.1016/j.heliyon.2024.e32127; 10.1109/SAMI58000.2023.10044491; 10.3389/fphar.2024.1506437; 10.1109/SACI58269.2023.10158582 Environmental Science: 10.1109/SAMI60510.2024.10432830; 10.1109/ICCC62278.2024.10582928; 10.1007/s11269-025-04120-x Engineering Science: 10.1109/ICCC62278.2024.10583113; 10.1109/CINTI-MACRo57952.2022.10029414; https://bulletin.am/wp-content/uploads/2022/04/2.pdf; 10.1109/ICCC62278.2024.10582962; 10.1109/SACI60582.2024.10619733; 10.3934/geosci.2022031 17. References update based on suggestion and 2024-2025. Additional General Language Problems: • Page 4: Correct "Theoretically, it enriches acid fracturing evaluation frameworks by introducing dynamic conductivity metrics and heterogeneity indices." To "The framework is enriched by introducing dynamic conductivity metrics and heterogeneity indices, which enhance theoretical understanding." • Page 7: Change "exceeding 35%." to "exceeding 35% in fracture conductivity." for specificity. • Page 8: Revise "Future work should prioritize intelligent evaluation systems leveraging machine learning to further enhance prediction accuracy and operational efficiency." to "Future work should focus on developing intelligent evaluation systems that leverage machine learning to further improve prediction accuracy and operational efficiency." Reviewer #2: This paper presents a multi-method assessment framework that integrates laboratory experiments, operational curve analysis, real-time fracture monitoring, and production logging. By combining experimental data with modeling approaches, it effectively identifies the key controlling factors influencing the conductivity of acid-etched fractures and establishes discriminant criteria for optimal etching patterns. I find the research to be valuable and innovative, and I recommend that the manuscript be accepted with minor revisions. Below are a few suggestions for improvement: 1. The introduction lacks a sufficiently comprehensive review of existing studies in related fields, which makes it difficult to clearly highlight the breakthroughs and novelty of this work. Expanding the background section with a more in-depth discussion of previous research would help to better position this study within the current literature and underscore its contributions. 2. The theoretical analysis omits the coupled effects of reservoir temperature on acid fluid viscosity and reaction kinetics. Given that acid fracturing is frequently performed in high-temperature environments (e.g., >100℃), it is recommended to include a discussion on temperature sensitivity and its implications for field application. 3. For the numerical simulations, such as those involving the Discrete Fracture Network (DFN) model, it would be helpful to clarify whether the parameter inputs are based on actual reservoir data. This would improve the credibility and applicability of the modeling results. 4. There are inconsistencies in the numbering of some figures and tables—for example, the text references to Figure 6 and Figure 7 do not correspond with their actual numbering. Please ensure that all figures and tables are correctly numbered and consistently referenced in the manuscript. 5. References [25] and [26] are SPE conference papers that lack publication years. Additionally, there are inconsistencies in the formatting of references, particularly with author name abbreviations. Please revise the references to conform to the journal’s formatting guidelines. ****** 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.0327027.r002
Revision 1
30 May 2025 Author Response Dear editor and reviewer, Thank you for your letter and the detailed comments regarding our manuscript. Your insightful feedback has greatly assisted us in revising and enhancing our work. We have thoroughly examined your comments and incorporated revisions that we trust will meet your expectations. The revised sections are indicated in green within the revised manuscript. The primary modifications made to the manuscript, along with our corresponding responses to individual comments, are as follows. 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: Present paper describes a study that aims to “Integrated evaluation and optimization of acid fracturing effectiveness in carbonate reservoirs: experimental insights and field validation ”. While the study's topic is of relevance to this journal, the manuscript's content requires major revisions to improve its scientific quality. Upon careful review, I have identified several issues that need to be addressed before the paper can be accepted for publication. 1. Clarify the Concept of "Viscosity Gradient Modulation": In the abstract (Page 10), the phrase "alternating injections of high-viscosity gelled acid (>50 mPa·s) with low-viscosity reactive acid (<5 mPa·s)" is introduced but lacks clarity. Please elaborate on the procedure, the rationale behind alternating viscosities, and how this modulation specifically enhances etching heterogeneity, ideally with a simplified explanation for clarity. Response: Thank you for your suggestions on modification. We explained this concept in the Introduction. The modified content is on lines 111-129 of page 4. The core is to construct the synergistic effect of dynamic viscosity field and chemical reaction field through the sequential alternating injection of high viscosity coagulation acid (η>50mPa · s) and low viscosity active acid (η<5mPa · s). The specific implementation includes three key stages: (1) high viscosity acid fracturing stage: the gel acid preferentially breaks through the high permeability zone by virtue of its shear dilution characteristics, forming the main etching groove; (2) Viscosity induced excitation stage: Low viscosity acids generate fractal flow driven by viscosity differences, forming a self similar branching network along the main groove wall; (3) Non steady state etching stage: The chemical potential gradient formed by alternating injection dynamically matches the diffusion rate of acid solution with the rock dissolution rate, inducing dendritic etching morphology (Figure 2). The optimization mechanism of this regulation method is reflected as follows: ① When the viscosity difference reaches the order of 10 times, the characteristic length of the viscosity index is shortened by 38%, and the branch density is increased by 2.1 times; ② The rapid infiltration of low viscosity acid (Re number>500) increases the coverage of microcrack dissolution to 82%; ③ The Marangoni effect caused by the interfacial tension gradient optimizes the aspect ratio of the main groove to 4:1. 2. Simplify Technical Language in the Introduction: The sentence "The development of carbonate reservoirs is constrained by strong heterogeneity and low porosity-permeability characteristics, particularly in complex media reservoirs where acid fracturing effectiveness exhibits significant variability" (Page 8) is overly complex. Please break it into shorter, clearer sentences to improve readability, e.g., "Carbonate reservoirs are highly heterogeneous and generally have low porosity and permeability. This heterogeneity often causes acid fracturing results to vary significantly." Response: Thank you for your suggestions on modification. We have organized the content structure and optimized the sentence expression of the entire paper, and moderately polished the sentence structure to enhance its overall professionalism and readability. 3. Improve Consistency in Terminology: Throughout the manuscript, terms such as "acid-etched fracture conductivity" and "etched fractures" are used. For clarity, define these terms explicitly early on and ensure consistent usage. For example, specify whether "etched" always refers to acid-etched fractures with rough surfaces or channel-like features. Response: Thank you for your suggestions on modification. We have standardized and adjusted the professional terminology in the paper to ensure consistency, such as "acid-etched fracture " and “acid-etched fracture conductivity". 4. Specify the Laboratory Conditions More Clearly: In the description of laboratory experiments (Page 10), the injection rates are given as "0.1-5.0 m³/min" without context. Please specify the typical conditions used in the experiments, including why these ranges were chosen and how they relate to field conditions, to improve relevance and reproducibility. Response: Thank you for your suggestions on modification. We have supplemented the selection criteria for experimental conditions and their correlation analysis with on-site conditions. The new content clarifies the intrinsic relationship between experimental parameters and field conditions, further enhancing the reproducibility and engineering applicability of the research method. The modified content is in Section 2.1 on lines 140-159 of page 5. 5. Add a Brief Explanation of "Heterogeneity Indices": When discussing the "heterogeneity indices" (Page 10), the manuscript would benefit from a brief explanation of how these indices are calculated, what they represent physically, and their significance in predicting fracture conductivity. This will make the concepts accessible to a broader audience. Response: Thank you for your suggestions on modification. We have supplemented the definition, physical significance, and application value of this concept in predicting fracture conductivity in Section 2.2. The modified content is on lines 160-185 of page 5 of the revised manuscript. 6. Enhance Description of Field Validation Data: On Page 11, the field validation with Well A1 reports a correlation coefficient of R²=0.85. Please provide more details about the data collection process, such as sampling frequency, data quality control, and how the pressure fluctuations were linked to natural fracture density. Response: Thank you for your suggestions on modification. We have provided a detailed explanation of the data collection process, strict data quality control measures, and systematic analysis methods, further revealing the correlation between the fluctuation amplitude of construction pump injection pressure and the degree of reservoir fracture development (especially natural fracture density). The modified content is in Section 3.1.2 on lines 344-366 of page 14 of the revised manuscript. 7. Add Clarification in the "Operational Curve Analysis" Section: The description of how pressure curves are analyzed (Page 11) is somewhat vague. Please include a step-by-step explanation or a schematic diagram illustrating how these analyses are performed to quantify fracture network features. Response: Thank you for your suggestions on modification. We have provided a detailed explanation of the fracturin process. The modified content is in Section 3.1.1 on lines 310-341 of page 12-13 of the revised manuscript. 8. Language Improvement – Grammatical Corrections in the Abstract: In the sentence "experimental verification shows 40%-60% increase in channel depth" (Page 10), change "shows" to "demonstrates" for a more formal tone. Additionally, "40%-60%" should be written as "40%–60%" to follow proper typographical standards. Response: Thank you for your suggestions on modification. We conducted a comprehensive inspection and correction of grammar errors and formatting irregularities in the paper. 9. Correct the Use of Parentheses for Numerical Data: On Page 8, the phrase "operation conditions: 150 °C/60 MPa" should be revised to "operational conditions (150 °C and 60 MPa)" for clarity and grammatical correctness. Response: Thank you for your suggestions on modification. We conducted a comprehensive inspection and correction of grammar errors and formatting irregularities in the paper. 10. Improve the Sentence Structure in the "Evaluation Metrics" Section: The sentence "conductivity measurements achieving ±8% reproducibility under ISO 13503-5 standards" (Page 10) is awkward. Rephrase to: "The conductivity measurements achieved a reproducibility of ±8%, in accordance with ISO 13503-5 standards." Response: Thank you for your suggestions on modification. We conducted a comprehensive review and revision of the sentence exposition and sentence structure in the paper. 11. Enhance the Explanation of "Reaction Kinetic Parameters": In the laboratory section (Page 10), mention briefly what specific parameters (e.g., reaction rate constants, activation energy) were measured, and how these parameters influence field performance predictions. This will help clarify the laboratory methodology. Response: Thank you for your suggestions on modification. This part of the paper mainly discusses the etching effect of acid solution on cracks and its effect on improving the flow conductivity. Considering that the kinetic parameters of acid reaction are not the core research object of this article, only a brief explanation was provided without in-depth analysis. 12. Language – Correct Fragment and Verb Errors: In the sentence, "This systematic approach provides quantitative benchmarks for predicting field treatment outcomes, with conductivity measurements achieving ±8% reproducibility under ISO 13503-5 standards" (Page 10), consider separating into two sentences for clarity: "This systematic approach provides quantitative benchmarks for predicting field treatment outcomes. The conductivity measurements achieved ±8% reproducibility under ISO 13503-5 standards." Response: Thank you for your suggestions on modification. We conducted a comprehensive inspection and correction of grammar errors and formatting irregularities in the paper. 13. Make the Figures and Tables More Descriptive: Ensure all figures (e.g., fracture etching patterns, conductivity tests) are accompanied by detailed captions explaining what is shown, the methodology used, and key insights. Including these will greatly aid in understanding the experimental results. Response: Thank you for your suggestions on modification. We have provided a detailed explanation and analysis of the experimental result images. 14. Language – Address Sentence with Excessive Passive Voice: In the sentence "laboratory investigations quantified the reaction kinetics of diverse acid systems and conductivity of etched fractures" (Page 11), change to active voice for clarity: "We quantified the reaction kinetics of diverse acid systems and the conductivity of etched fractures through laboratory investigations." Response: Thank you for your suggestions on modification. We conducted a comprehensive inspection and correction of grammar errors and formatting irregularities in the paper. 15. Improve the Conclusion Section's Clarity and Simplicity: The concluding paragraph (Page 12) includes complex sentences like "The findings validate the core hypothesis... thereby providing theoretical foundations and practical guidance." Break this into shorter sentences to emphasize key outcomes. For example, "Our findings confirm that reservoir heterogeneity and fracture conductivity are critical factors. This provides both theoretical insights and practical strategies for optimizing acid fracturing." Response: Thank you for your suggestions on modification. We have reorganized the conclusion section of the paper, involving the optimization of sentence structure and the standardization adjustment of grammatical structure. 16. Add and update the future research inn this article. Clearly articulate potential areas for future research, building on findings from this study and existing literature. Please add the below literatures and show how your techniques can be useful for their topics: Medicine Science: 10.1002/btm2.10752; 10.1016/j.heliyon.2024.e32127; 10.1109/SAMI58000.2023.10044491; 10.3389/fphar.2024.1506437; 10.1109/SACI58269.2023.10158582 Environmental Science: 10.1109/SAMI60510.2024.10432830; 10.1109/ICCC62278.2024.10582928; 10.1007/s11269-025-04120-x Engineering Science: 10.1109/ICCC62278.2024.10583113; 10.1109/CINTI-MACRo57952.2022.10029414; https://bulletin.am/wp-content/uploads/2022/04/2.pdf; 10.1109/ICCC62278.2024.10582962; 10.1109/SACI60582.2024.10619733; 10.3934/geosci.2022031 Response: Thank you for your suggestions on modification. We have reviewed the 13 papers you recommended, including 7 papers in the medical field and 8 papers in petroleum engineering. Given that this study is mainly based on petroleum and natural gas engineering and focuses on acid fracturing technology, combined with the relevance of professional content, we ultimately cited 7 petroleum engineering papers. Not citing papers in the field of medicine is not due to insufficient academic level, but rather due to significant differences between their research direction and the expertise of this topic. Zhang, G., Chen, R., Ghorbani, H., Li, W., Minasyan, A., Huang, Y., ... & Shao, M. (2025). Artificial intelligence‐enabled innovations in cochlear implant technology: Advancing auditory prosthetics for hearing restoration. Bioengineering & Translational Medicine, e10752. Ding, H., Wang, C., Ghorbani, H., Yang, S., Stepanyan, H., Zhang, G., ... & Wang, W. (2024). The impact of magnesium on shivering incidence in cardiac surgery patients: A systematic review. Heliyon. Ghorbani, H., Asadi, S., Ghorbani, S., Ghorbani, P., Stepanyan, H., Khlghatyan, N., ... & Rituraj, R. (2023, January). Investigating the predictive contribution of attitude towards life and belief system on self-resilience and psychological toughness of cancer patients about the mediating role of emotion regulation. In 2023 IEEE 21st World Symposium on Applied Machine Intelligence and Informatics (SAMI) (pp. 000139-000146). IEEE. Ghorbani, H., Minasyan, A., Ansari, D., Ghorbani, P., Wood, D. A., Yeremyan, R., ... & Minasian, N. (2024). Anti-diabetic therapies on dental implant success in diabetes mellitus: a comprehensive review. Frontiers in Pharmacology, 15, 1506437. Aghabalyan, D., Ghorbani, H., & Rituraj, R. (2023, May). Relationship of Medicine and Philosophy: Mathematical Modeling of Moral Structures-Etometry. In 2023 IEEE 17th International Symposium on Applied Computational Intelligence and Informatics (SACI) (pp. 000567-000574). IEEE. Voskanyan, M., Ghorbani, H., & Azodinia, R. (2024, January). Utilizing Citizen-Driven Scientific Endeavors for Freshwater Pollution Surveillance: A case report of Lake Sevan, Armenia. In 2024 IEEE 22nd World Symposium on Applied Machine Intelligence and Informatics (SAMI) (pp. 000505-000512). IEEE. Voskanyan, M., Ghorbani, H., & Azodinia, M. (2024, April). An Investigation of the Hydrochemical Parameters for Natural Monuments. In 2024 IEEE 11th International Conference on Computational Cybernetics and Cyber-Medical Systems (ICCC) (pp. 1-6). IEEE. Hazbeh, O., Ghorbani, H., Molaei, O., Shayanmanesh, M., Lajmorak, S., Rituraj, R., & Bahrami, S. (2022, November). Proposing a New Model for Estimation of Oil Rate Passing Through Wellhead Chokes in an Iranian Heavy Oil Field. In 2022 IEEE 22nd International Symposium on Computational Intelligence and Informatics and 8th IEEE International Conference on Recent Achievements in Mechatronics, Automation, Computer Science and Robotics (CINTI-MACRo) (pp. 000037-000044). IEEE. Beheshtian, S., Roodbari, S. K., Ghorbani, H., Azodinia, M., Mudabbir, M., & Varkonyi-Koczy, A. R. (2024, April). Comparative Evaluation of Machine Learning and Bayesian Deep Learning Methods for Estimating Ultimate Recovery in Shale Well Reservoirs. In 2024 IEEE 11th International Conference on Computational Cybernetics and Cyber-Medical Systems (ICCC) (pp. 000017-000024). IEEE. Ghorbani, H., & Abad, A. R. B. (2022). Analysis of geomechanical processe Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Response to reviewer comments -20250530.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0327027.r003
Decision Letter - Karthik Kannan, Editor Integrated evaluation and optimization of acid fracturing effectiveness in carbonate reservoirs: experimental insights and field validation PONE-D-25-20000R1 Dear Dr. Lu, 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, Karthik Kannan, Ph. D., Academic Editor PLOS ONE Reviewers' comments: Reviewer's Responses to Questions Comments to the Author Reviewer #1: (No Response) Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed ******** 2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions??> Reviewer #1: (No Response) Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? -->?> Reviewer #1: (No Response) Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available??> The PLOS Data policy Reviewer #1: (No Response) Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English??> Reviewer #1: (No Response) Reviewer #2: Yes ****** Reviewer #1: I am glad that the authors effectively addressed my concerns and challenges in their research work. The authors' ability to provide timely and satisfactory responses to my queries reflects their strong commitment to adhering to scientific principles and conducting reliable research. This dedication benefits the scientific community and enhances our understanding of the subject matter. Therefore, based on the authors' satisfactory response, I find this version of the article to be acceptable. Reviewer #2: No comments. The auhors correctly answered my questions. Thus, I recommend that this paper can be accepted as it is. ****** 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 ******** https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0327027.r004
Formally Accepted
Acceptance Letter - Karthik Kannan, Editor PONE-D-25-20000R1 PLOS ONE Dear Dr. Lu, 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 You will receive further instructions from the production team, including instructions on how to review your proof when it is ready. Please keep in mind that we are working through a large volume of accepted articles, so please give us a few days 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 Prof. Karthik Kannan Academic Editor PLOS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0327027.r005

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 .