-->PONE-D-25-37019-->-->Towards Devising a Novel Mechatronic Weft Selection Module for Enhancing Weft Selection Capacity in Rapier Looms-->-->PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Al. Mamun,

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 Oct 18 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.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:-->

• 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,

Ying Ma, Ph.D.

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 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.

3. 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.

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.

5. Please include captions for your Supporting Information files at the end of your manuscript, and update any in-text citations to match accordingly. Please see our Supporting Information guidelines for more information: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/supporting-information.

6. 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. 

[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?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented. -->

Reviewer #1: Partly

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 requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.-->

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

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

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.-->

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

-->5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)-->

Reviewer #1: Review Comments to the Author

This manuscript presents the design, development, and demonstration of a novel mechatronic weft selection module for rapier looms. The authors propose a circular feeder-based programmable selection system capable of handling up to 20 weft yarns, supported by an Arduino Mega-based controller and mechanical automation. The approach is innovative and practically relevant, particularly in addressing the long-standing limitations in weft pattern diversity on rapier looms.

Strengths of the Study:

• The manuscript addresses a significant technological limitation in woven fabric production and offers a novel hardware solution grounded in real-world constraints.

• The integration of mechanical, pneumatic, and electronic components is well thought out and economically viable, especially the use of low-cost controllers and reused materials.

• A full prototype is developed and tested with various yarn types, achieving a 100% selection and insertion success rate.

• The paper is generally well-written and structured with clear intent and progression.

Areas for Improvement:

1. Title:

• The current title is informal and includes redundant phrasing. Suggested revision:

"Development of a Mechatronic Weft Selector to Enhance Patterning Capacity in Rapier Looms"

2. Abstract:

• Add quantitative results (e.g., number of trials, speed, types of yarns).

• Avoid vague novelty claims unless supported by comparative literature.

3. Introduction:

• The literature review should include more peer-reviewed technical papers rather than brochures.

• Clearly state the research objectives and novel contributions at the end of the section.

4. Design and Methods:

• Improve scientific framing of design descriptions (currently too procedural).

• Embed all referenced figures.

• Add performance metrics (actuation timing, power consumption, durability).

• Consider including CAD diagrams or exploded views of the module.

5. Operational Methodology:

• Add visuals such as flowcharts or timing diagrams.

• Move TINKERCAD simulation details to supplementary materials.

6. Results and Evaluation:

• Benchmark your system against existing commercial devices (DORNIER, ITEMA, PICANOL).

• Include more performance metrics: insertion time, miss-pick rate, energy use.

7. Discussion:

• Excellent recognition of the rotor's role in angular stabilization.

• Add commentary on system scalability and industrial deployment potential.

8. Conclusion:

• Reiterate key performance outcomes.

• Clarify next steps in industrial integration and synchronization with real loom cycles.

9. References:

• Include more peer-reviewed references to increase academic credibility.

________________________________________

Suggested Additional References for Future Directions:

1. Azizan, A., Cao, S., Dahlan, A., & Endrini, S. (2025).

Mapping knowledge landscapes and emerging trends in digital biomarkers for dementia in older adults: A scoping and bibliometric analysis.

Archives of Gerontology and Geriatrics Plus, 2(2), 100148.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aggp.2025.100148

Why include it? Digital biomarker integration can inspire future smart textile applications or sensor-augmented fabrics.

2. Azizan, A., Endrini, S., & Abdullah, K. H. (2025).

A research landscape analysis on Alzheimer’s disease and gerontechnology: Identifying key contributors, hotspots, and emerging trends.

Archives of Gerontology and Geriatrics Plus, 2(1), 100125.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aggp.2025.100125

Why include it? Gerontechnology overlaps with future applications of adaptive smart textiles for healthcare and elderly monitoring.

3. Azizan, A., Sirada, A., & Samosir, N. R. (2025).

Falling Forward: Tracing Technological Solutions for Fall Prevention in Older Adults (1996–2024).

Information Research Communications, 1(2), 74–82.

Why include it? Presents technological pathways (e.g., sensor-based prevention) that can inspire smart fabric integration in advanced looms.

Final Recommendation:

This manuscript proposes a highly novel and practically valuable weft selection mechanism that enhances design flexibility in rapier looms. However, before acceptance, the authors should revise the manuscript to address the outlined technical and structural concerns. With these improvements, the paper will make a significant contribution to the fields of textile engineering and industrial automation.

Reviewer #2: This manuscript proposes a mechatronic weft selection system for rapier looms, targeting up to 20 yarns with a fixed yarn-to-rapier angle. The concept is novel and relevant, but the technical validation, integration details, and industrial feasibility are incomplete.

(1)How was the claimed 100% selection success verified over long production runs?

(2)Is there data on operational speed and any effect on loom throughput?

(3)Were yarn breakages or mis-picks quantified across yarn types?

(4)How stable is the angle control when feeder spacing is further reduced?

(5)Why were no industrial weft selection benchmarks used for comparison?

(6)Could pneumatic air pressure variation impact yarn quality over time?

(7)How is the Arduino control synchronized with actual loom cycles?

(8)Are there durability tests showing wearing of moving parts and guides?

(9)What is the cost implication versus existing multi-selector systems?

(10)Could vibration or electrical noise affect controller accuracy in real looms?

**********

-->6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their 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

**********

[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.

Development of a Mechatronic Weft Selector to Enhance Patterning Capacity in Rapier Looms

PONE-D-25-37019R1

Dear Dr. Mamun,

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,

Ying Ma, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

-->Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.-->

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

**********

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

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented. -->

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

**********

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

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

**********

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

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.-->

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

**********

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

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.-->

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

**********

-->6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)-->

Reviewer #2: accept~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~accept~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~accept~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~accept~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~accept~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~accept~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~accept~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~accept~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~accept~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~accept~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~accept~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~accept~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~accept~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~accept~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~accept~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

**********

-->7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their 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 #2: No

**********