Dear Dr. Shi,

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: Major revisions

Please submit your revised manuscript by Jan 22 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,

Agbotiname Lucky Imoize

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

1. When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

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, all author-generated code must 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. 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.

Additional Editor Comments:

Dear Authors,

Kindly revise the manuscript according to the reviewers comments.

[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: 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: This paper presents a PLC control system design method based on digital twin. However, there are some issues that need to be addressed as follows.

1) Section 0: why should digital twins be integrated into electrical control systems? The challenges to be addressed by this work should be clarified.

2) Section 1.2: the differences between virtual commissioning and traditional commissioning methods are not summarized clearly. What are the advantages and disadvantages of virtual commissioning and traditional commissioning?

3) Section 1.3: the control system design process is a reference to someone else's work and the innovation of this work should be clarified.

4) Section 3.3: the designed software interface should clearly identify the different areas and describe their functions in English, rather than merely presenting a screenshot of the interface.

5) Section 3.5: the vertical axis in Figure 13 lacks a clear explanation. The meaning of this coordinate should be clarified, and the software results should be quantitatively presented.

6) Section 4: the methodology employed in this work is not adequately addressed, and the experimental results are not quantified. These aspects should be explicitly included to provide a more comprehensive conclusion.

The manuscript in its current shape is not ready for publication in the Journal. The issues mentioned above must be addressed and a revised manuscript be resubmitted for review.

Reviewer #2: 1.The number of references cited in this manuscript is relatively limited, which to some extent constrains the theoretical depth and breadth of the article. It is recommended that the author broaden the scope of literature searches in subsequent research and writing, incorporating citations of classic literature and the latest research findings in the relevant field.

2.I have observed instances of nearly identical paragraphs. Specifically, within the 2.2 Application of DT maturity analysis section, the paragraphs titled "DT Model dimension" and "Dimension of DT model," as well as the opening paragraphs of the "In summary" section, exhibit a high degree of similarity, seemingly reiterating the same information. Avoiding content repetition is crucial in academic writing, and it is advisable for the author to revise and adjust these paragraphs accordingly.

3.The conclusion analysis constitutes a vital component of the article, yet the conclusion analysis and system improvement section (3.5 Result analysis and system improvement) appears somewhat underdeveloped, failing to fully explore the significance and potential implications of the research findings. For instance, based on the scoring results, what specific issues exist within the control system during elevator operation, and what corresponding optimization methods are proposed?

4.The description of Fig. 13 lacks clarity, and there are missing annotations on the graphic, such as the units for the numerical values on the vertical axis, which may confuse readers. It is recommended that the author provide a more detailed description of the chart, including explanations of the horizontal and vertical axes, as well as the legends.

**********

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.

Dear Dr. Shi,

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: Minor revisions

Please submit your revised manuscript by Apr 11 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 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,

Agbotiname Lucky Imoize

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.

Additional Editor Comments:

Dear Authors,

Please revise the paper according to the reviewers' recommendations and improve the English usage significantly.

Thank you.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

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

Reviewer #3: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions??>

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

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

The PLOS Data policy

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: No

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

Reviewer #1: The comments have been addressed in the revised manuscript. It is suggested to be accepted for publication.

Reviewer #2: 1.The abstract does not clearly state the innovation of this study. It is suggested to supplement the explanation of the innovative aspects of this study.

2.The language is repetitive and verbose. It is suggested to avoid absolute and colloquial expressions, unify the tenses, and make the language more concise.

3.The conclusion section mixes the research summary, practical verification, and future prospects in a way that lacks clear hierarchical structure. It is recommended to clearly separate these three parts and add a description of the limitations for the future, which will facilitate the reading and research of the readers.

Reviewer #3: The manuscript is technically sound. The methodology for designing and verifying PLC control systems using a Digital Twin is logical and well-detailed. The iterative approach to virtual commissioning and the analysis of commissioning results effectively demonstrate the reliability and efficiency improvements enabled by the DT approach. The data derived from multiple commissioning stages supports the conclusion that the DT-based design method improves efficiency and reduces errors. The statistical analysis is appropriate for the type of research presented. The iterative virtual commissioning process and the associated scoring system provide a quantitative evaluation of control system performance. The explanation of the scoring metrics and the detailed breakdown of improvements across commissioning iterations contribute to the rigor of the evaluation. The authors have declared that all relevant data are included within the manuscript and its supporting information files. The manuscript provides detailed descriptions of the virtual commissioning results, including scores and performance evaluations. the manuscript is generally well-written and presented in standard English. The structure is logical, with a clear progression from problem identification to methodology, results, and conclusions. However, there are occasional grammatical errors and awkward phrasings that could benefit from minor editorial improvements.

Comments to the Author:

1. The manuscript addresses a highly relevant and current topic in industrial automation and digital manufacturing.

2. The integration of Digital Twin technology with PLC control system design is clearly explained and demonstrated through a practical application.

3. The iterative virtual commissioning approach is well-documented and showcases the value of DTs in optimizing control systems before physical implementation.

4. The detailed explanation of the DT maturity analysis and the evaluation criteria provides a robust framework that could be beneficial to other researchers and practitioners.

5. The figures and illustrations significantly aid the reader’s understanding of the methodology and results.

6. The manuscript effectively highlights the advantages of virtual commissioning, such as reducing testing costs and improving system reliability, which are critical considerations in modern manufacturing environments.

Suggested Minor Revisions:

1. Review the manuscript for minor grammatical and typographical issues to improve readability.

2. Ensure consistency in terminology, particularly regarding “virtual commissioning,” “Digital Twin,” and related terms.

3. Consider expanding the discussion on potential limitations or challenges associated with implementing DT-based control system design in different industrial contexts.

**********

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: Yes:  Richard Govada Joshua

**********

[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

A generic method for PLC control system design based on Digital Twin

PONE-D-24-49574R2

Dear Dr. Shi,

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,

Agbotiname Lucky Imoize

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Accept in current form.

Reviewers' comments: