Dear Dr. HU,

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.

==============================

ACADEMIC EDITOR: 

Please find the comments of the reviewers and please provide necessary changes for the same and submit by the date below.

==============================

Please submit your revised manuscript by Nov 14 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,

Gaurav Ashok Bhaduri

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 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.

4. Thank you for stating the following financial disclosure:

“the Guizhou Provincial Youth Science and Technology Talents Growth Project(Grant No.QJJ[2024]163) ;Higher Education Engineering Research Center of Guizhou Province (Grant No. QJJ[2023]040);Guizhou Association for Science and Technology New Quality Qianyan Leading Project - Youth Voyage Program 2025 (XZQYXM-01-10).”

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.

5. Thank you for stating the following in the Acknowledgments Section of your manuscript:

“The authors would like to deeply appreciate the support from Higher Education Engineering Research Center of Guizhou Province (Grant No. QJJ[2023]040);the Guizhou Provincial Department of Education 2025 “Hundreds of Schools and Thousands of Enterprises Science and Technology Tackling Unveiled” Program;Guizhou Provincial Youth Science and Technology Talents Growth Project(Grant No.QJJ[2024]163) ;Guizhou Association for Science and Technology New Quality Qianyan Leading Project - Youth Voyage Program 2025 (XZQYXM-01-10”

We note that you have provided funding information that is not currently declared in your Funding Statement. However, funding information should not appear in the Acknowledgments 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 and let us know how you would like to update your Funding Statement. Currently, your Funding Statement reads as follows:

“the Guizhou Provincial Youth Science and Technology Talents Growth Project(Grant No.QJJ[2024]163) ;Higher Education Engineering Research Center of Guizhou Province (Grant No. QJJ[2023]040);Guizhou Association for Science and Technology New Quality Qianyan Leading Project - Youth Voyage Program 2025 (XZQYXM-01-10).”

Please include your amended statements within your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf.

6. Please update your submission to use the PLOS LaTeX template. The template and more information on our requirements for LaTeX submissions can be found at http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/latex .

7. 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.

8. 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.

9. Please ensure that you refer to Figure 2, 3, 4 and 28 in your text as, if accepted, production will need this reference to link the reader to the figure.

10. Please upload a copy of Figure 66, to which you refer in your text on page 21 in PDF submission. If the figure is no longer to be included as part of the submission please remove all reference to it within the text.

11. 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):

Dear Authors

Please find the comments of the reviewers

[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

Reviewer #4: Partly

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

Reviewer #4: No

**********

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: No

**********

Reviewer #1: 1. The paper identifies the tool rake angle (≤15°) and tool tip radius as key factors influencing the stagnation point. It is recommended to supplement a quantitative analysis of stress triaxiality and Lode angle under different cutting speeds, comparing the applicability differences of J-C, H-M, and MMC fracture criteria under dynamic loading conditions. Experimental validation can reference research on the correlation between wear mechanisms and stress distribution of high-entropy alloy-coated tools in micro-cutting TC4 titanium alloy.

2. The current model visualizes the slip-line field through secondary development in SOLIDWORKS. It is suggested to introduce a multi-scale finite element simulation approach: at the macroscopic scale, coupling the thermomechanical constitutive model for diffusion bonding of TC4 titanium alloy while considering the effect of initial welding thermal-mechanical coupling on subsequent cutting deformation; at the microscopic scale, embedding the dislocation density evolution equation to characterize the synergistic effects of α→β phase transformation and void toughening mechanisms within the adiabatic shear band. A comparative analysis of prediction error ranges between the traditional slip-line field theory and the improved model is needed.

3. Regarding the applicability threshold of the 15° rake angle in the dead-zone model, a phased validation strategy is recommended: for the low strain rate phase (<0.1 s⁻¹), reference in-situ observations of grain refinement and dynamic recrystallization behavior during TC4 hot rolling; for the high strain rate phase (>1 s⁻¹), incorporate the microvoid evolution patterns in adiabatic shear bands under one-dimensional strain compression to calibrate the correlation between slip-band inclination and temperature field distribution.

4. The paper focuses on fundamental mechanisms but should supplement an evaluation of TC4 cutting parameters' effects on the surface integrity of aerospace components. For example, comparing grain boundary migration differences between conventional rolling processes (ε = 0.0001~0.1 s⁻¹) and cutting-induced dynamic strain rates, quantifying the impact of dead-zone size on residual stress and fatigue life of the machined surface.

Reviewer #2: In general, this manuscript is suggested to be accepted for publication after minor revision.

It is recommended to take notice the following:

1. A little bit of rearranging of the abstract is needed maybe. Abstract is usually divided into four parts WHY, WHAT, HOW, and main conclusions.

WHY → This section usually contains one or two lines mainly defining what is the objective of the study or this work was done.

WHAT → This is the main portion of the abstract. It contains what was done. Like what simulations have been performed what kind of parametric studies are done to support the WHY section.

HOW → In this section you will define how u have achieved the WHAT section points. What kind of methodologies you have utilized to achieve the goals defined in WHAT section?

Usually at the end you will include one or two lines that how it is going to benefit the scientific community or what are the readership of this paper.

2. The objective of this work should be modified in the end of introduction.

3. What is the criteria for selection of parameters given in Table 1?

4. Provide the reference for the equations you used.

5. Provide the details about the FEM model developed.

6. Add more information about the results from dead metal zone morphology for different cutting parameters.

7. It is hard to follow the Slip line field for different rake angles, explain more.

8. A short subsection on “Future Research Directions” in the conclusion.

Reviewer #3: 1.The title has a weak correlation with keywords, and the keywords should be optimized.

2.The abstract only describes the model construction process but does not clarify the research objectives.

3.The paper only verifies the accuracy of the dead metal zone model when the rake angle ≤ 15°, but does not clearly explain the specific reasons for model failure when the rake angle > 15°.

4.The experiment only uses a single working condition to verify the slip-line field, without covering different rake angles.

5.Some research work can be useful in the introduction. Effect of polymeric aluminum chloride waste residue and citric acid on the properties of magnesium oxychloride cement.

6.The first point in the conclusion highly repeats the content in the middle of the abstract, both describing the model construction process.

7.The conclusion does not clearly propose process optimization suggestions for cutting TC4 titanium alloy.

Reviewer #4: The study addresses slip-line field theory in TC4 titanium alloy cutting, focusing on dead metal zone and stagnation point, but the novelty is limited since many classical models already exist.

Theoretical derivations use assumptions on stress distribution and elastic–plastic transition without rigorous justification, making the model appear weak in scientific grounding.

Simulation work through SolidWorks is constrained to narrow parameter ranges and lacks quantitative validation; advanced FEM platforms would provide more reliable results.

Differences between theoretical predictions and simulation values of the dead metal zone are significant, and the explanation for these discrepancies is not convincing.

Experimental validation is very limited, with narrow cutting conditions, and results are more illustrative than quantitative; clear visualization of the dead metal zone is missing.

No systematic error analysis or mesh sensitivity study is presented, which reduces the reliability of the simulation findings.

Literature review is descriptive rather than critical, with insufficient discussion of how the proposed model improves upon or differs from existing approaches.

Language quality and presentation issues reduce clarity; figures are not well-labeled, and overlap exists between background, results, and discussion.

Quantitative comparison among theory, simulation, and experiments is weak, leaving the conclusions insufficiently supported.

Overall contribution appears incremental, with insufficient evidence of a breakthrough in understanding slip-line field or cutting mechanisms.

**********

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: Yes:  Rajkumar V

**********

[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.

Study Of Shear-Plastic Slip Mechanism Based On TC4 Titanium Alloy

PONE-D-25-26088R1

Dear Dr. Bo Hu,

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,

Gaurav Ashok Bhaduri

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Accepted

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #3: 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: (No Response)

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

Reviewer #4: (No Response)

**********

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

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

Reviewer #4: (No Response)

**********

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

The PLOS Data policy

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

Reviewer #4: (No Response)

**********

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

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

Reviewer #4: (No Response)

**********

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

Reviewer #3: The stagnation point and dead metal zone in the cutting process directly or indirectly affect the chip formation and stress distribution, while the stress distribution in the machining process determines the plastic slip direction of the material.

Reviewer #4: (No Response)

**********

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: Yes:  Rajkumar Velu

**********