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.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Apr 04 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,

Solomon Oyebisi, PhD

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. 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.

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

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

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

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

The PLOS Data policy

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: No

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: No

**********

Reviewer #1: I appreciate your valuable effort and contribution to this research study, which provides significant insights into the field. there are some comments and suggestions outlined below that need to be addressed for further refinement and improvement. I recommend considering these points to enhance the study's clarity and overall quality.

• 157 lines: Water used was tap water; (revise the statement)

• 158 lines: Alkali used was sodium hydroxide produced by Tianjin FengChuan chemical

• 159 lines: reagent Technology Co., Ltd., with NaOH content≥96.0% and carbonate ≤1.5%. (Please explain the Sodium silicate combined with Sodium hydroxide.

• The study was conducted on an alkali-activated material (AAM) that was formulated based on the following principles:

a. Aluminum silicate precursor: fly ash;

b. Alkaline activator: sodium hydroxide;

c. Fine aggregate: sand.

Remove this statement The above statement it is duplicate and already explains the materials from the material section

• GBT-17671 procedure reference is required for this method standard.

• Reduce the bullet and number for the method section and make it a paragraph instead of bullets. And please check all sentences with punctuation marks.

• After heat curing, all samples were maintained under laboratory conditions (temperature of 20±2°C and relative humidity of 90%) until testing. (Justify the statement using the Standard Code.)

• The test was performed at a loading rate of 0.2 MPa/min, a compressive strength sensitivity of 50 kN, a loading rate of 0.01 MPa/min, and a flexural strength sensitivity of 2 kN. (The loading rate needs to be cited with reference. In addition, please all statements from the methodology need to be cited.

• Mpa should be MPa, and check all errors in the manuscript.

• 238 lines: For FA mortars containing sodium hydroxide (N #)???

• Line 270, 283, 288: Each paragraph started with numbering, please remove numbers, (This is required for the entire manuscript.

• The title of research needs to be modified from (The Effect of an Alkali Activator on the Properties of Fly Ash-Based Mortar and Neural Network Prediction) to (The Effect of NaOH Percentages on Properties Cement Modified Fly Ash and Neural Network Prediction). The mixture contains Cement and percentages of fly ash; thus, it is not an alkali activator mortar, it is the cement mortar modified fly ash, containing NaOH concentration that why the title has to be clear.

• The discussion section combines with the result section, for instance: The compressive strength section explains the result and discussion in the same section.

• Resolution of Figures 1, and 7 have to be increased.

• Add recommendations and future perspectives.

Reviewer #2: • To complete your background, cite valuable recent reserc in ANN and geopolymer applications, such as:

o John, S. K., Cascardi, A., Nadir, Y., Aiello, M. A., & Girija, K. (2021). A New Artificial Neural Network Model for the Prediction of the Effect of Molar Ratios on Compressive Strength of Fly Ash‐Slag Geopolymer Mortar. Advances in Civil Engineering, 2021(1), 6662347.

o Paruthi, S., Husain, A., Alam, P., Khan, A. H., Hasan, M. A., & Magbool, H. M. (2022). A review on material mix proportion and strength influence parameters of geopolymer concrete: Application of ANN model for GPC strength prediction. Construction and Building Materials, 356, 129253.

o Ahmed, H. U., Mohammed, A. S., Faraj, R. H., Abdalla, A. A., Qaidi, S. M., Sor, N. H., & Mohammed, A. A. (2023). Innovative modeling techniques including MEP, ANN and FQ to forecast the compressive strength of geopolymer concrete modified with nanoparticles. Neural Computing and Applications, 35(17), 12453-12479.

• Inputs in eq 1 were normalized. How was treated the output relatively?

• Please report explicit ann model

• Please provide sensitivity analysis

• Please provide reliability analysis and stress the novelty of the research

**********

what does this mean? ). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy

Reviewer #1: Yes:  Mahmood Dheyaaldin

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: Comments.docx

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.

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

Please submit your revised manuscript by  May 01 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,

Solomon Oyebisi, PhD

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (if provided):

The authors only addressed Reviewer 1 comments and left Reviewer 2's comments unaddressed.

Reviewer 2 comments are as follows:

• To complete your background, cite valuable recent reserc in ANN and geopolymer applications, such as:

o John, S. K., Cascardi, A., Nadir, Y., Aiello, M. A., & Girija, K. (2021). A New Artificial Neural Network Model for the Prediction of the Effect of Molar Ratios on Compressive Strength of Fly Ash‐Slag Geopolymer Mortar. Advances in Civil Engineering, 2021(1), 6662347.

o Paruthi, S., Husain, A., Alam, P., Khan, A. H., Hasan, M. A., & Magbool, H. M. (2022). A review on material mix proportion and strength influence parameters of geopolymer concrete: Application of ANN model for GPC strength prediction. Construction and Building Materials, 356, 129253.

o Ahmed, H. U., Mohammed, A. S., Faraj, R. H., Abdalla, A. A., Qaidi, S. M., Sor, N. H., & Mohammed, A. A. (2023). Innovative modeling techniques including MEP, ANN and FQ to forecast the compressive strength of geopolymer concrete modified with nanoparticles. Neural Computing and Applications, 35(17), 12453-12479.

• Inputs in eq 1 were normalized. How was treated the output relatively?

• Please report explicit ann model

• Please provide sensitivity analysis

• Please provide reliability analysis and stress the novelty of the research

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

[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.

The Effect of NaOH Percentages on Properties Cement Modified Fly Ash and Neural Network Prediction

PLOS ONE

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.

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

Comment No.1:The current title lacks clarity and could be improved to more accurately reflect the study’s scope. A suggested revision is: 'Effect of Sodium Hydroxide Dosage on Strength Development in Cement-Fly Ash Mortars: Experimental and ANN-Based Prediction.' This version better communicates the dual focus on experimental analysis and neural network modeling.

Comment No.2:While the integration of Artificial Neural Networks (ANN) with alkali-activated materials is well-established in the literature, the manuscript would benefit from a clearer explanation of its original contribution. Specifically, you should articulate how the selected NaOH dosage levels provide new insight into material behavior, and what distinguishes the applied neural network model from previous studies.

Comment No.3:The methodology section related to the ANN lacks sufficient elaboration. Further clarification is needed on the selection criteria for network parameters such as the number of neurons, layers, and the use of the trainlm training function. The manuscript would also be strengthened by describing the use of training and validation datasets and how model performance was assessed. In addition, the inclusion of standard performance metrics, such as root mean square error (RMSE) or mean absolute error (MAE)would help evaluate the model's effectiveness in predicting outcomes.

Comment No.4:The sensitivity analysis is currently limited in scope and would benefit from deeper exploration. Additionally, the manuscript does not discuss the uncertainty associated with ANN predictions. Incorporating statistical measures such as confidence intervals or prediction bounds would enhance the robustness of the modeling results. I also recommended that you can demonstrate the model’s performance on data not used during training to assess generalization.

Comment No.5:The manuscript contains grammatical inconsistencies and some technically imprecise expressions (e.g., “NaOH content≥96.0%”, “alkali-added mortar”, “colloidal sand”). A comprehensive language review by a proficient English editor is recommended to improve overall clarity and ensure terminological consistency throughout the paper .

Comment No.6:Several figures (notably Figures 3, 5, and 8) would benefit from enhanced resolution and clearer axis labeling. Table 2 is dense and may be more effective if divided or reformatted for readability. The scanning electron microscopy images (Figure 9) should include more descriptive captions and annotations to support the interpretations presented in the text.

Comment No.7:The basis for choosing sodium hydroxide concentrations between 3% and 8% is not clearly stated. It would be helpful to indicate whether this selection was informed by previous literature or preliminary experimental work. Furthermore, the manuscript should provide a more detailed description of the control mix design used for comparative analysis.

Comment No.8:The term “colloidal sand” is non-standard and may lead to confusion. The authors are advised to define this term explicitly or adopt more conventional terminology. Moreover, consistency is needed in the usage of terms such as “geopolymer” and “alkali-activated material (AAM),” particularly when distinguishing between low- and high-calcium fly ash systems.

Comment No.9:The abstract includes repeated numerical values, which could be streamlined to improve its readability. Furthermore, the contribution of ANN to the study should be described earlier in the abstract to better represent the paper’s objectives.

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

Please submit your revised manuscript by Jul 13 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,

Makungu Marco Madirisha

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.

[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: (No Response)

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Partly

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: N/A

**********

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: Yes

Reviewer #3: No

**********

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

Reviewer #2: The paper was significantly improved and can be now accepted in the present form. Congrats for the work done

Reviewer #3: The authors should revise the manuscript to meet the required publication standards. They are encouraged to consider the attached comments to improve their work.

**********

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: 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.

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.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Sep 20 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,

Parthiban Kathirvel

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

If the reviewer comments include a recommendation to cite specific previously published works, please review and evaluate these publications to determine whether they are relevant and should be cited. There is no requirement to cite these works unless the editor has indicated otherwise.

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.

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #1: N/A

Reviewer #2: 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

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

Reviewer #1: • The commonly used molar concentration of sodium hydroxide in experimental conditions should not exceed 20M. Additionally, the ratio of sodium silicate solution to sodium hydroxide should not be greater than 1.0. (This limitation must be supported with appropriate references from recent and credible sources.)

• Several references cited in the manuscript are dated prior to 2022. The authors are advised to update the literature review by including more recent references published from 2022 onwards.

• Please check all abbreviations used throughout the manuscript. For example, clarify whether "P.O" or "O.P" is correct and ensure consistent use of abbreviations.

• In Section 2.2 on Density, the method described must comply with a recognized standard. The authors should clearly state which standard was followed and provide a proper citation.

• Each paragraph in the manuscript must include relevant references to support the statements made. Proper citation is essential for maintaining scientific credibility.

Reviewer #2: The manuscript has undergone substantial revisions and improvements in response to the previous feedback. The authors have addressed the concerns raised in a thorough and thoughtful manner, enhancing both the clarity and the scientific rigor of the work. As a result of these significant enhancements, the paper now meets the standards required for publication and can be accepted in its current form

**********

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.

Attachments

Attachment

Submitted filename: Minor comments.docx

Effect of Sodium Hydroxide Dosage on Strength Development in Cement-Fly Ash Mortars: Experimental and ANN-Based Prediction

PONE-D-24-56788R4

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. For questions related to billing, please contact billing support .

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,

Parthiban Kathirvel

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Reviewers' comments: