Dear Dr. Huynh,

Please submit your revised manuscript by May 23 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,

Antonio Riveiro Rodríguez, PhD

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

1. When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

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. Thank you for stating the following financial disclosure: [This research was funded by the Ministry of Education and Training, project grant No.T2024-02NTĐ, and hosted by Ho Chi Minh City University of Technology and Education, Vietnam.]. 

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

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

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

4. PLOS requires an ORCID iD for the corresponding author in Editorial Manager on papers submitted after December 6th, 2016. Please ensure that you have an ORCID iD and that it is validated in Editorial Manager. To do this, go to ‘Update my Information’ (in the upper left-hand corner of the main menu), and click on the Fetch/Validate link next to the ORCID field. This will take you to the ORCID site and allow you to create a new iD or authenticate a pre-existing iD in Editorial Manager.

[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

Reviewer #4: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

Reviewer #4: 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

Reviewer #4: Yes

**********

4. 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 #1: The manuscript titled "Applying new mold temperature control strategy to reduce the cycle time and improve the tensile strength of thin wall products in injection molding process" presents an innovative approach to localized heating of the mold cavity using the Ex-IHRSC technique. The study aims to improve part strength and reduce cycle time in the injection molding process. While the concept is intriguing, the manuscript suffers from several critical issues that need to be addressed before it can be considered for publication. Below are detailed comments and concerns:

1) The title claims a reduction in cycle time, but the manuscript lacks concrete experimental data to substantiate this claim. The authors must provide explicit results demonstrating the reduction in cycle time, or the title should be revised to reflect the actual findings.

2) Section 2.1 introduces the principle of induction heating with several equations. However, the values of the parameters used in these equations are not provided, nor are the calculations or results derived from them. This omission makes it difficult to evaluate the validity of the theoretical framework. Please include the parameter values, calculations, and results to support the discussion.

3) The manuscript does not adequately address the potential issue of heat loss when the heated insert contacts the mold. Given the high thermal conductivity of metals, the temperature of the insert is likely to drop rapidly upon contact with the mold. This could significantly affect the efficiency of the heating process and increase energy consumption. The authors should discuss how they have mitigated this issue and provide data on the temperature drop and its impact on energy efficiency.

4) The rotating device for the insert appears to require significant modifications to the mold cavity. This could limit the applicability of the technique to molds with simple geometries and reduce its suitability for complex molds and parts. The authors should discuss the limitations of their technique in terms of mold complexity and propose potential solutions or adaptations for more complex geometries.

5) Figure 4 shows three sensors fixed in the insert for temperature measurement, but the manuscript does not provide a clear image of the insert with the sensors or explain how the sensor cables are managed. This lack of detail raises concerns about the practicality and accuracy of the temperature measurements. Please include a detailed image of the insert with sensors and describe the setup of the cables.

6) The manuscript does not provide data on the temperature of the insert after it is rotated into position for clamping and filling. This is a critical oversight, as the temperature at this stage directly impacts the effectiveness of the heating technique. The authors should include experimental data on the insert temperature after rotation to validate the performance of their technique.

7) The simulation results focus only on the heating process, neglecting the cooling process when the insert is moved away from the induction heater. A comprehensive analysis should include both heating and cooling phases to provide a complete understanding of the thermal dynamics involved. Please supplement the simulation results with an analysis of the cooling process.

8) Figures 15 and 16 illustrate the temperature distribution in the cavity for different heating times, but the manuscript does not specify how the insert temperature was set or how boundary conditions were defined. The authors should carefully describe the boundary conditions and ensure they align with the heating and cooling processes.

9) The simulation appears to separate the induction heating process from the injection filling process, which does not reflect the actual experimental conditions. The authors should clarify whether the insert is heated during the injection process and ensure that the simulation accurately represents the experimental setup.

10) The manuscript only presents tensile strength results for samples made with different polymers. To provide a more comprehensive evaluation of the technique's performance, the authors should include additional mechanical properties such as tensile modulus and failure strain. This will help readers better assess the impact of the insert heating technique on material performance.

11) The manuscript is overly verbose and lacks sufficient effective data to support its conclusions. The authors should focus on presenting clear, concise, and relevant data that directly address the key claims of the study. Redundant or tangential discussions should be removed to improve the manuscript's clarity and impact.

While the proposed Ex-IHRSC technique is promising, the manuscript in its current form does not provide sufficient experimental evidence or theoretical rigor to support its claims. The authors must address the concerns raised above, particularly regarding heat transfer, temperature measurement, simulation accuracy, and experimental data presentation. Once these issues are resolved, the manuscript will be better positioned to make a meaningful contribution to the field of injection molding.

Reviewer #2: Dear Editor and Author:

Thank you for inviting me to review this exciting manuscript.

This study simulated and experimentally investigated the heating process using Ex-IHRSC. The temperature distribution of the insert was investigated by varying the distance between the induction coil and the mold surface (G = 5, 10, and 15 mm) and the heating time (1-8 s). In addition, The effect of the heating time on the tensile strengths of PA6, PP, PC, and ABS was investigated. This emphasizes the practical application of the research. However, the manuscript currently contains numerous errors that need to be fixed. By correcting these issues, the authors can significantly enhance the quality and impact of the work, making it a valuable contribution to the field. Here are the following specific comments and suggestions.(please read the attachment)

Reviewer #3: Dear authors, thank you for the nice publication. Within your text, I added some remarks that can help to make the publication stronger. My main remarks are on the lack of numerical simulation results for the injection moulding process. It is also not clear which Heat transfer coefficient have been used. It should also be mentioned that using induction is consuming a lot of electrical energy.

Reviewer #4: This manuscript studied induction heating of the injection molding mold to improve the weldline strength. An interesting paper, however, I have several comments as follow;

1. Although this idea of induction heating is great, however, must pay attention to the mold insert material if it can sustain the thermal fatigue.

2. How many tensile bars were tested? If more than one, tensile strength should have STD on Figure 19.

3. Unit of viscosity should be Pa*s, density should be kg/m3, 3 is supercript.

4. Can you supply color figures on Figures 8, 9, and 10. What simulation software you used? Can not distinguish the temperature level on your figures. Red color means hot and blue color means cool on color figures.

5. Resolution on Figures 11 and 13 are poor.

6. Caption should be “The weld-line strength”, do you use one gate or two gate? If two gates, must use weld-line strength on Figure 19.

7. Heating time on Figure 12.

**********

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: Yes:  Prof. dr. ir. Frederik Desplentere

Reviewer #4: Yes:  shyh-shin Hwang

**********

[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: PONE-D-25-07599_review report.pdf

Attachment

Submitted filename: PONE-D-25-07599_FDS.pdf

Dear Dr. Huynh,

Please submit your revised manuscript by Nov 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 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,

Antonio Riveiro Rodríguez, PhD

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 #1: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #4: All comments have been addressed

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #4: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #1: N/A

Reviewer #4: Yes

**********

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

The PLOS Data policy

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #4: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

Reviewer #4: Yes

**********

Reviewer #1: The revised manuscript is much improved and is potentially acceptable for publication. However, the manuscript requires significant condensation before we can proceed with formal acceptance.

The current text is too long and the high number of figures reduces the overall clarity and impact. Please undertake the following revisions:

1) Shorten the Text: Drastically reduce the word count by removing repetitive statements, streamlining the introduction and discussion, and moving detailed methodological descriptions to supplementary information where appropriate.

2) Reduce and Consolidate Figures: The number of figures must be reduced. Please combine related figure panels where possible and move non-essential figures to the supplementary information. Retain only those figures that are absolutely critical for supporting your primary conclusions.

Reviewer #4: Thank you for your revisions, however, next time if you resubmit your revised manuscripts. Please use red color words on your manuscripts or provide another files to show what you have modified to save reviewer’s time. Like ,

Q1: Unit of viscosity should be Pa*s, density should be kg/m3, 3 is supercript.

Reply: Thank you for your comments. Viscosity unit has been modified as Pa*s and density is revised.

**********

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 #4: Yes:  shyh-shin Hwang

**********

[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

Applying a new mold temperature control strategy to improve the tensile strength of thin wall products in injection molding processes

PONE-D-25-07599R2

Dear Dr. Huynh,

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,

Antonio Riveiro Rodríguez, PhD

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

Reviewer #5: All comments have been addressed

**********

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

Reviewer #5: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #5: Yes

**********

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

The PLOS Data policy

Reviewer #5: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #5: Yes

**********

Reviewer #5: Paper can be published in this journal. Paper is well-designed. It is too enough as Technical and scientific.

Experimental is power.

**********

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 #5: No

**********