Dear Dr. Liu,

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.

==============================

AE: The reviewers acknowledge the main contributions of this research work. However, some reviewers have raised concerns regarding novelty and technical issues that should be addressed.

==============================

Please submit your revised manuscript by Jun 05 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,

Ke Feng

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. We note that the grant information you provided in the ‘Funding Information’ and ‘Financial Disclosure’ sections do not match.

When you resubmit, please ensure that you provide the correct grant numbers for the awards you received for your study in the ‘Funding Information’ section.

3. Thank you for stating the following financial disclosure:

“This work was supported by the Science Technology Research Program of Chongqing Municipal Education Commission (Grant No. KJQN202203405, KJQN202303402, KJQN202203417).”

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

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

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

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

“The authors would like to acknowledge the Chongqing Rail Transit Group for their data supports.And this work is supported by the Science Technology Research Program of Chongqing Municipal Education Commission (Grant No. KJQN202203405, KJQN202303402, KJQN202203417).”

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

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

“This work was supported by the Science Technology Research Program of Chongqing Municipal Education Commission (Grant No. KJQN202203405, KJQN202303402, KJQN202203417).”

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

5. Please ensure that you refer to Figure 15 in your text as, if accepted, production will need this reference to link the reader to the figure.

Additional Editor Comments:

AE: The reviewers acknowledge the main contributions of this research work. However, some reviewers have raised concerns regarding novelty and technical issues that should be addressed.

[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: No

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

Reviewer #1: This paper proposes a Gamma process-based framework for predicting the remaining useful life (RUL) of subway pantograph sliding strips using real-world data from Chongqing Subway Line 6. By incorporating both historical and real-time observations through Bayesian inference, the model achieves accurate, stage-aware RUL predictions, with posterior estimation methods compared for robustness. The predicted RUL is further integrated into maintenance scheduling, enabling cost-effective and timely decision-making for subway system upkeep. This paper presents an interesting approach; however, several critical issues remain unresolved:

1. The overall formatting of the manuscript is poor, and the English expression is awkward and unnatural in places.

2. This paper is an engineering-focused work, but the literature review is inadequate. It should focus more on studies related to Remaining Useful Life prediction for the Subway Pantograph Sliding Strips, providing a more relevant context.

3. Real-world data is crucial for RUL prediction tasks and is highly valuable. Therefore, a more detailed description of the dataset's characteristics is necessary to strengthen the paper's foundation.

4. The decision to use the Gamma process instead of the Wiener process is not well justified. The Wiener process is also widely used in RUL prediction tasks, as seen in Reliability Engineering & System Safety (DOI: 10.1016/j.ress.2024.110014). A discussion on why the Gamma process was chosen over the Wiener process should be included.

5. The applicability of the proposed method is unclear. For example, similar operational and maintenance requirements exist in high-speed rail systems (see Vehicle System Dynamics, DOI: 10.1080/00423114.2024.2369718). It would be beneficial to explore whether the proposed method could be applied to such systems.

6. The resolution of all images in the manuscript should be improved to ensure clarity and readability.

Reviewer #2: This paper proposes an adaptive, data-driven framework for predicting the remaining useful life (RUL) of subway pantograph sliding strips using data from Chongqing Subway Line 6. The paper is well-structured and presents promising results. To further enhance the manuscript, the following suggestions are offered:

1. The Abstract could benefit from a clearer emphasis on the practical significance of this research. Highlighting the engineering context and potential real-world applications would help readers better understand the value of the proposed method.

2. While the authors have provided a thorough review of current research, it would be beneficial to more explicitly summarize the existing research gaps before introducing the contributions and novelty of this work. Additionally, expanding the discussion to include emerging trends in machine learning and signal processing—particularly in industrial applications—could strengthen the manuscript. For example, exploring connections to recent advancements in areas such as digital twin methodology for vibration-based monitoring and prediction of gear wear, review of vibration-based gear wear monitoring and prediction techniques, and neuro-fuzzy system-guided cross-modal zero-sample diagnostic framework using multi-source heterogeneous non-contact sensing data could provide valuable context and demonstrate the broader relevance of this research.

3. The resolution of the figures in the manuscript could be improved to ensure clarity and enhance the overall presentation of the results.

4. There are occasional grammatical errors throughout the manuscript. A thorough proofreading to address these issues would improve the readability and professionalism of the paper.

5. Including a section on potential future research directions at the end of the Conclusion would provide a forward-looking perspective and inspire further exploration in this field.

**********

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.

Predicting the Remaining Useful Life of Metro Pantograph Sliding Strips Using Gamma Processes and Its Implications for Maintenance Scheduling

PONE-D-25-12961R1

Dear Dr. Liu,

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,

Ke Feng

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

This paper has been improved by addressing the comments from reviewers. The quality of this paper has been improved significantly. The reviewers agree to accept this paper.

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: The manuscript has been significantly improved through the revisions. The key issues raised in earlier rounds have been addressed adequately, and the current version demonstrates a clear structure, enhanced clarity, and stronger experimental support. From an academic standpoint, the paper is now suitable for consideration for acceptance.

Reviewer #2: This paper has been revised based on the comments from reviewers. The quality of this paper has been improved significantly. It can be accepted now.

**********

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

**********