Dear Dr. Shalunov,

The manuscript needs more in-depth explanation and better clarity for figures and text.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Oct 19 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,

Massimo Mariello

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 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.

3. 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. 

Additional Editor Comments (if provided):

Reviewer #1:

Reviewer #2:

Reviewer #3:

[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: Partly

**********

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

Reviewer #1: No

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: No

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

Reviewer #1: Please find my comments below:

1. The manuscript should be structured properly, and headings should be numbered.

2. It is suggested to cite more recent literature (2020–2025), especially from outside the authors' own group.

3. In the introduction section, provide the background of the topic, and motivation and objectives of this work. Summarize the related work in literature and narrow down to the research gap. Also include a comparative table for modern ultrasonic emitters.

4. The authors have reported SPL increases, however, uncertainty ranges, error bars, and number of repetitions are missing in the results.

5. The manuscript has several grammatical errors. Please consider thorough language editing.

6. Please include a nomenclature to define all symbols along with their units.

7. Please ensure that all the data is provided with the supporting files.

Reviewer #2: The paper presents new approaches to increasing sound pressure during oscillation generation in gas media of ultrasonic flexural-mode emitters. The work is interesting and the paper well written, but the following issues should be carefully addressed [(R) and (S) is defined at the end of the comments]:

1. (R) Abstract. The abstract also should present a brief topic framework, describe the scope and objectives, in addition to present the methodology adopted ind the main results/conclusions.

2. (R) Page 8, paragraph 2. Replace “wave,and” with “wave, and”.

3. (R) Page 10. Paragraph 1 after Fig. 5. variables should be italicised.

4. (R) Table 2. Overall dimensions, mm: disc diameter d x D. Could authors clarify the meaning of "x D"?, For example, in disc diameter 146 mm, it is 146x200.

5. (S) Figures 9, 10, 12, 16. All graphs could have the same scale to make it easier to compare the results. For example, 110, 115, 120,... 160.

6. (R) Figures 9, 10, 12, 16. The units should be shown.

(S) Suggestion. The author can change it or not. Does not compromise scientific rigour or understanding of the document.

(R) Recommendation. It does not compromise scientific rigour, but it compromises the rigour of communication and understanding.

Reviewer #3: The reviewer appreciates the work done by the authors. The contents of the article are generally interesting and promising for further practical applications. The manuscript is basically properly structured. It is suitable for publication in the “Plos One (Public Library of Science)”. Anyway, the goal of the work must be better illustrated within the abstract, introduction and conclusions. Compared with other research articles, which treat the same topic, the superiority of the manuscript has not been clearly explained. So, please review the corresponding parts. Moreover, please make sure that all the software, which have been utilized, have been referenced. The further work should additionally be mentioned at the end of the article. Furthermore, some sentences within the text are too long. So, spelling, sentence structure, conciseness and writing style could be improved with the help of a native English speaker. In conclusion, an “appendix” section, containing names and elaboration of the symbols and acronyms used, should also be inserted at the end of the article.

**********

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.

Ultrasonic flexural mode emitters: new approaches to increasing sound pressure during oscillation generation in gas media

PONE-D-25-39068R1

Dear Dr. Shalunov,

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,

Massimo Mariello

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #3: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #4: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #5: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #6: (No Response)

Reviewer #7: All comments have been addressed

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

Reviewer #4: Yes

Reviewer #5: Yes

Reviewer #6: Partly

Reviewer #7: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

Reviewer #4: N/A

Reviewer #5: N/A

Reviewer #6: Yes

Reviewer #7: Yes

**********

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

The PLOS Data policy

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

Reviewer #4: Yes

Reviewer #5: Yes

Reviewer #6: Yes

Reviewer #7: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

Reviewer #4: Yes

Reviewer #5: Yes

Reviewer #6: No

Reviewer #7: Yes

**********

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

Reviewer #2: The paper presents new approaches to increasing sound pressure during oscillation generation in gas media of ultrasonic flexural-mode emitters. The work is interesting and the paper well written. The authors present an excellent work.

Reviewer #3: The required revisions have been carried out and the manuscript can be accepted for publication in the "Plos One" .

Reviewer #4: The paper is revised accordingly and can be accepted for publication. The authors have revised the paper base on my comments.

Reviewer #5: Dear Authors, I have reviewed the revised version of your manuscript and find it to be substantially improved compared to the earlier submission. You have clearly and satisfactorily addressed all of the reviewers comments.

Reviewer #6: Title: Ultrasonic flexural mode emitters: new approaches to increasing sound pressure during oscillation generation in gas media.

General comments: The authors have focused on the development and study of ultrasonic flexural-oscillating disk emitters for gas environments, generating elastic vibrations at ultrasonic frequencies (above 20 kHz) with high sound pressure levels required for energy-intensive technological processes (sound pressure levels exceeding 140 dB). The aim of the study was to identify the limitations of traditional flat disk designs and to substantiate new technical solutions that can significantly improve radiation efficiency in gas environments.

The article is well organized, fits the journal scope, and has a contribution. In addition, the authors tried to answer all reviewer questions. However, the revision should take into account the following points:

1. The authors should point out the main contribution (in the introduction and abstract sections) of their work. What is new about it?

2. The figures and tables in the manuscript are sufficient, but several figures require enhanced resolution and consistent formatting to improve clarity. Refining resolution, adjusting labels, or optimizing layout could make them more effective and readable. In addition, all figures should be the same size.

3. The authors should add physical explanations for the discussions.

4. Some advanced concepts should be referred to with adequate references for less experienced readers.

5. The authors should state the limitations of their study, theory, methods, or argument. These should be recognized and explicitly addressed to facilitate a more equitable and transparent assessment of their work. Identifying potential constraints or uncertainties would enhance the credibility and robustness of their conclusions.

6. There are many errors, so the authors need to check the grammar, typos, and errors in the manuscript.

In general, I do not recommend the article in its current form. If the author gives a convincing answer to the above items and discusses the innovation of the article, then a decision can be made about the article.

Reviewer #7: All the queries by other reviewer's have been answered adequately by the authors. The MS can be recommended for its publication.

**********

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

Reviewer #4: No

Reviewer #5: No

Reviewer #6: No

Reviewer #7: Yes:  Mriganka Shekhar Chaki

**********