Investigation on the influence of unbalanced shaft component in gearbox on displacement using the Newmark-β method

Thanh Lam Tran; Vinh Phoi Nguyen; Chi Cuong Le; Thien Ngon Dang

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0335632

Peer Review History

Original SubmissionJanuary 9, 2025
25 Apr 2025 Decision Letter - Ha Quang Thinh Ngo, Editor Dear Dr. Dang, 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 09 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, Ha Quang Thinh Ngo 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 suggest you thoroughly copyedit your manuscript for language usage, spelling, and grammar. If you do not know anyone who can help you do this, you may wish to consider employing a professional scientific editing service. The American Journal Experts (AJE) (https://www.aje.com/) is one such service that has extensive experience helping authors meet PLOS guidelines and can provide language editing, translation, manuscript formatting, and figure formatting to ensure your manuscript meets our submission guidelines. Please note that having the manuscript copyedited by AJE or any other editing services does not guarantee selection for peer review or acceptance for publication. Upon resubmission, please provide the following: ● The name of the colleague or the details of the professional service that edited your manuscript ● A copy of your manuscript showing your changes by either highlighting them or using track changes (uploaded as a supporting information file) ● A clean copy of the edited manuscript (uploaded as the new manuscript file) 4. Please note that funding information should not appear in any 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. 5. 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. 6. We note that your Data Availability Statement is currently as follows: All relevant data are within the manuscript and in 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. 7. Please amend the manuscript submission data (via Edit Submission) to include author Vinh Phoi Nguyen. Additional Editor Comments: Please carefully read the comments of reviewers. In the submission of revised manuscript, authors must have a response for each comment. [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 Reviewer #3: Yes ******** 2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? -->?> Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes Reviewer #3: 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 Reviewer #3: Yes ****** 4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English??> Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: No Reviewer #3: No ****** Reviewer #1: 1. Please explaing in detail why 3 and 6 set zero ( 3= 3=0)?. And in this paragraph: “Here, α3 = α6 = 0; at this node, the remaining 3 positions 2, 4, and 6 need to be investigated: = [ , , ] where j = 2, 4, 6”. Author set 6 = 0, but the �6 are investigted. Please explaining more this problem? 2. Retype the symbol of “Poisson coefficient” in Table 1. 3. In this studay, Did author used Implicit or Explicit Newmark-β method? 4. In the investigation of “The Effect of Unbalance on Shaft Displacement”, results of displacement on the X-axis and Y-axis were obtained from Experimental Equipment or from numerial analysis? Why don’t show the comparison of Simulation and Experiment results in this investigation. 5. This study conclued that “These research results demonstrate that Newmark - β method used to analyzing the behavior of rotor systems with the reliability and high stability, fast convergence time and accuracy to 5%.”. Where did this conclusion show in paper? Reviewer #2: + Your English is not good. Authors should use the Professional English Editing Service to improve your writing. In the submission of revision, authors must submit the certificate of this service. + Keyword section contain at least five key words + Authors should use some potential tools to check AI in order to ensure the free-AI writing + In each figure, components must be tagged by numbers or characters. Then, in the body text, authors must explain these components in details. + Each mathematical symbols in figures must be described in table or text + Remember that in the multiple images of one figure, each one must be labelled by (a), (b) or (c). Later, in the caption of figure, the description of these images should be denoted + Characters in image are too small, it is difficult for readers to understand + Fig. 6 should be removed since there is no meaningful. Authors stated that they indicate the dimensions of transmission shaft, however only lengths of them are displayed + What is relation between Fig. 6 and Table 1? + It is hard to read the parameters in both x axis and y axis + In Fig. 12, what does it mean, how can readers understand + Please improve the quality of all figures in this manuscript + I think that authors did not prepare this manuscript carefully Reviewer #3: + Abstract must be re-written so that it reflects your works with significant contributions, briefly describe your method and insists on what technique you did + Title is so boring, authors should use native English speaker to modify some errors in grammar and phrase + Reference section is very poor, commonly there are necessary to cite 30-40 publications in related fields. Hence you must invest more efforts to read additional papers. Some key developments such as 10.1177/1077546320953733, 10.1007/s11071-022-08100-3, 10.1016/j.ymssp.2023.110941 and 10.1016/j.ymssp.2022.109691 should be mentioned and analyzed in detail. + Cited style should be changed. Term "author et al" is repeated so many times and should be replaced by the others + In the end of Introduction section, the contributions of this work must be declared + Also, the structure of this manuscript should be mentioned shortly at the end of introduction + All equations must be tagged in the order + Fig. 1 is very blurred and authors must mention each component of this figure in the body text + Fig. 2 is very basic and there is no need to display in the scientific research + In one figure, if there are more than two images, authors must tag each individually and explain them in the caption of figure + All mathematical symbols must be explained in detail such as x1, x2 .... + Fig. 4 lacks of the interactive forces/moments so that our readers could analyze your system + Where is equation (8) derived ? which theory or theorem. Why vector of F force appear in the explanation but there is no vector in the computational equation + In equation (3), what are these matrices and vectors? there is no explanation or explicit representation + It looks like that authors did not understand clearly what theoretical development was developed in this work + Why Table 5 is only validated in one mode such as speed 2000 rpm ****** 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 . Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step. Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Reviewers comments.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0335632.r001
Revision 1
12 Jun 2025 Author Response Dear Editor and Reviewer, The revised paper is submitted. The corrections made in the revised paper are colored in red. Much appreciate your comments and help in the preparation of the paper. Please find our responses to the reviewers' comments in the attached file named 'Response to Reviewers Kind regards, Ngon Dang Thien Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0335632.r002
11 Aug 2025 Decision Letter - Ha Quang Thinh Ngo, Editor Dear Dr. Dang, 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 25 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, Ha Quang Thinh Ngo 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. [Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.] Reviewers' comments: Reviewer's Responses to Questions Comments to the Author Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed ******** 2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions??> Reviewer #2: Partly ****** 3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? -->?> Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available??> The PLOS Data policy Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English??> Reviewer #2: No ****** Reviewer #2: + English is not good, authors should use the Professional English Editing Service to modify. In the submission of the revised manuscript, the certificate of this service should be submitted + Table 1 which indicate the system parameters of simulations, must be proved the correctness and properness. Authors must cite the reference source where you get them + Authors should produce a Table for abbreviation and symbol + Supporting information is very strange, authors must follow the instructions of this journal + The statement of Funding must contain the project code + Conclusion section must contain future works. Authors must specify the potential developments for our readers + Ref no 19, 21, 22 must be replaced by recent works + Results are presented, but there is limited discussion comparing them with similar studies in the literature. ****** 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 ******** [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 https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0335632.r003
Revision 2
16 Sep 2025 Author Response Dear Editor and Reviewers: The revised paper is submitted. The corrections made in the revised paper are colored in red. Much appreciate your comments and help in the preparation of the paper. List of revisions in response to the comments from reviewer #2 Reviewer #2: 1. English is not good, authors should use the Professional English Editing Service to modify. In the submission of the revised manuscript, the certificate of this service should be submitted We sincerely appreciate the reviewer’s comment regarding the language quality. The authors have significantly revised the English text and explanation to the professional form. 2. Table 1 which indicate the system parameters of simulations, must be proved the correctness and properness. Authors must cite the reference source where you get them We thank the reviewer for this important comment. Accordingly, the authors have added three references ([21], [22] and [23]) for the model parameters in the revised manuscript. 3. Authors should produce a Table for abbreviation and symbol We would like to thank the reviewer for the valuable comment. In response, we have updated Table 1 in the revised manuscript to clarify the system parameters. 4. Supporting information is very strange, authors must follow the instructions of this journal Thanks for comment, the supporting information has been re-formatted in the revised manuscript. 5. The statement of Funding must contain the project code We highly appreciate the reviewer’s comment. The project code has been added to the funding statement in the revised manuscript. 6. Conclusion section must contain future works. Authors must specify the potential developments for our readers We thank the reviewer for the helpful suggestion. We have included a brief discussion of potential future works in the conclusion section to highlight possible directions for further research. 7. Ref no 19, 21, 22 must be replaced by recent works Thanks to the reviewer's comment, accordingly, references [19], [21] and [22] have been updated to [19], [24] and [25]. 8. Results are presented, but there is limited discussion comparing them with similar studies in the literature. We thank the reviewer for this valuable comment. In the revised manuscript, we have updated the Introduction section to provide a more comprehensive overview of previous studies and to emphasize that there are currently very few experimental works in this field. As a result, direct comparisons with existing studies are limited. Nevertheless, the experimental results presented in this work offer reliable data and can serve as a valuable reference for future research. Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers_R2.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0335632.r004
15 Oct 2025 Decision Letter - Ha Quang Thinh Ngo, Editor Investigation on the Influence of Unbalanced Shaft Component in Gearbox on Displacement Using the Newmark-β Method PONE-D-25-01379R2 Dear Dr. Dang, 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, Ha Quang Thinh Ngo Academic Editor PLOS ONE Additional Editor Comments (optional): According to the comments of reviewer, this manuscript can be accepted in the present form Reviewers' comments: Reviewer's Responses to Questions Comments to the Author Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed ******** 2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions??> Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? -->?> Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available??> The PLOS Data policy Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English??> Reviewer #2: Yes ****** Reviewer #2: In the revised manuscript, all questions have been addressed. It can be published in the present 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 #2: No ******** https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0335632.r005
Formally Accepted
Acceptance Letter - Ha Quang Thinh Ngo, Editor PONE-D-25-01379R2 PLOS ONE Dear Dr. Dang, 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. You will receive an invoice from PLOS for your publication fee after your manuscript has reached the completed accept phase. If you receive an email requesting payment before acceptance or for any other service, this may be a phishing scheme. Learn how to identify phishing emails and protect your accounts at https://explore.plos.org/phishing. 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 Dr. Ha Quang Thinh Ngo Academic Editor PLOS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0335632.r006

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 .