Dear Dr. Luo,

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 Aug 16 2025 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org . When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

• 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,

Hassan Elahi

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 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.

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.

Comments from PLOS Editorial Office :

We note that one or more reviewers has recommended that you cite specific previously published works. As always, we recommend that you please review and evaluate the requested works to determine whether they are relevant and should be cited. It is not a requirement to cite these works. We appreciate your attention to this request.

[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

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: I Don't Know

**********

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

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: No

**********

Reviewer #1: The main title is develops very well. The main idea is develops and discusses by chronological idea very well. The English is well written. The manuscript is discusses STEM very well. It is such a great idea when it is discussing in physics model for the study.

Reviewer #2: Please improve the quality of the english that has been used in the writing. It is quite repetitive and somewhat hard to read.

Can the analysis extend upto a 3D simulation? Could you add that?

The result section should be easy to read. It is too redundant.

Reviewer #3: Several important issues should be addressed to improve the quality and clarity of the manuscript:

Major Comments:

• The title accurately reflects the scope of the study and is appropriate for the research conducted.

• The abstract is informative but too dense; it should be more concise and clearly separated into motivation, method, and key findings.

• The study addresses a relevant problem in VAWT performance and applies a credible simulation approach (LBM + LES), which is a strong point.

• The literature review provides sufficient background, but citation style is inconsistent and many references are grouped (e.g., [13–18]) without clear attribution of specific points.

• Authors should consider enriching the literature review and strengthening citation relevance by including the following recent studies:

� https://doi.org/10.3390/wind5010004

� https://doi.org/10.3390/en18071601

� https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0305745

� https://doi.org/10.3390/su17104654

• The novelty of the work is implied but not explicitly stated; it would benefit from a clearer articulation of how this study improves upon or differs from previous ones.

• The numerical setup is well detailed, and grid-independence is performed, but error metrics like RMSE or percentage deviation from experimental data are missing.

• There are broken references and unresolved figure/table labels (e.g., “Error! Reference source not found”) which must be fixed.

• The simulations are 2D, yet the authors themselves acknowledge the importance of 3D effects in DSV formation; this limitation should be discussed more transparently and critically.

• Results for different slot inlet/outlet locations and TSRs are insightful and match expected aerodynamic behavior, but the discussion sometimes remains too qualitative.

• Figures are often unclear, lack units, or have low resolution, making interpretation difficult. Improved labeling and explanations are necessary.

• Quantitative comparisons should include uncertainty bounds or confidence intervals to support performance claims.

• The conclusion reiterates key points well, but uses vague terms (“significantly improves”, “slight flow separation”) without consistent numerical backing.

• The statement about combining multiple PFC strategies is interesting but undeveloped; the authors should briefly suggest specific complementary techniques.

• Reference formatting is inconsistent; some DOIs are separated onto new lines and some sources are outdated or not peer-reviewed.

• Language throughout the paper needs editing by a native or fluent English speaker due to frequent grammar issues and awkward phrasing.

• Overall, the methodology is solid and the problem is well motivated, but the manuscript requires substantial revision in presentation, clarity, and depth of analysis.

• Recommendation: Major revision. The technical content is promising, but presentation and language issues must be addressed, and more rigorous analysis (quantitative and comparative) is needed.

**********

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:  Norshida Abdul Kadir

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 . Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

<p>A study on the effect of slotted airfoil on the performance of Darrieus vertical axis wind turbines in different wind regions

PONE-D-25-02456R1

Dear Dr. Luo,

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,

Hassan Elahi

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewer #2: Has accepted the paper

Reviewer #3: Recommending a minor revision, which should be incorporated in the final version of manuscript.

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

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 #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: (No Response)

**********

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

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: (No Response)

**********

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

The PLOS Data policy

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: (No Response)

**********

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

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: (No Response)

**********

Reviewer #2: Thank you for the revision. All the necessary changes have been made and the paper is quite well now.

Reviewer #3: The authors have undertaken a thorough and commendable revision of the manuscript. The responses to the previous comments are generally well-justified, and significant improvements have been made in language, structure, clarity, and methodological transparency. Below is a point-by-point assessment:

Major Comments:

• The title remains appropriate and accurately reflects the study’s focus. No changes are needed.

• The abstract has been significantly improved. It is now more concise, better structured, and clearly highlights the motivation, method, and key findings. The novelty is now explicitly stated.

• The use of LBM-LES remains a strength. The authors have justified the 2D approach convincingly by citing prior literature and acknowledging computational limitations. The discussion on 3D effects (Section 2.4) is now more transparent and critical.

• The authors have disaggregated grouped citations and improved reference relevance. However, the suggested recent studies (e.g., on wind turbine control, microgrids, cybersecurity) are not directly relevant to this aerodynamic study, and their exclusion is justified.

• The novelty is now clearly articulated in the abstract and conclusion, emphasizing the unique contribution of slot positioning across different wind regions and TSRs.

• The authors have corrected the misleading “growth rate” terminology and provided clearer grid-independence validation. However, the lack of traditional error metrics (e.g., RMSE) is still a limitation, though mitigated by convergence-based and experimental validation.

• All broken references and labels have been fixed. The manuscript is now professionally formatted.

• The limitations of 2D simulations are now more critically and transparently discussed, with appropriate references to prior work.

• The results and discussion are now more quantitative and closely tied to the figures. Redundant content has been removed, and key findings are better explained.

• Figures have been improved in resolution and clarity. Units and labels are now consistent, and annotations are more legible.

• The authors have provided a reasonable justification for not including confidence intervals due to computational constraints. Their alternative validation approach (convergence criteria, grid independence, and experimental comparison) is acceptable for a CFD study of this nature.

• Vague terms like “significantly improves” have been replaced with quantitative statements (e.g., “63.62% improvement”). The conclusions are now numerically supported.

• The authors have briefly suggested complementary techniques (e.g., Genie flap, cavity, vortex generators, one-way valve) in the conclusion, which adds value for future research.

• References are now consistently formatted. Non-peer-reviewed sources have been removed, and outdated references have been updated.

• The language has been significantly improved through professional editing tools. The manuscript is now clear, fluent, and technically precise.

• The manuscript has been substantially improved in presentation, clarity, and depth. The authors have addressed nearly all concerns raised in the previous review. The technical content is sound, the methodology is rigorous, and the findings are well-supported.

**********

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

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

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

Reviewer #2: No

Reviewer #3: No

**********