-->PONE-D-25-57202-->-->Conceptual Qualitative System Dynamics Model for Simulation of Perceived Workload, Stress and Performance from Industrial Work Content-->-->PLOS One

Dear Dr.Ruppert

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 -->-->Please ensure that you address all of the reviewers’ comments below.

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

Please submit your revised manuscript by Jan 26 2026 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.. 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 . 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,

Gerard Hutchinson, MD

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 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.

3. Thank you for stating the following financial disclosure:

“”Nemzeti Kutatás, fejlesztés és innovációs hivatal (NKFIH)

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. Thank you for stating the following in your Competing Interests section:

“NO authors have competing interests”

Please complete your Competing Interests on the online submission form to state any Competing Interests. If you have no competing interests, please state "The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.", as detailed online in our guide for authors at http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submit-now

This information should be included in your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf.

5. We note that your Data Availability Statement is currently as follows: “Not applicable, no related data”

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.

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: No

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #1: I Don't Know

Reviewer #2: No

**********

-->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.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: No

**********

-->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: Yes

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: The manuscript proposes a qualitative system-dynamics model aimed at simulating how industrial work content influences perceived workload, stress dynamics (sustained attention, acute stress, chronic stress), and performance. The topic is timely and highly relevant in the context of Industry 5.0, human-centric manufacturing, and Human Digital Twins.

However, the manuscript also has several limitations that significantly hinder clarity and scientific rigor. The model remains purely conceptual, with limited validation, unclear mathematical formalization, and a somewhat overwhelming level of complexity that may not be fully justified by its qualitative nature.

Major issues to be addressed:

1. Although the manuscript repeatedly uses terms such as “accumulation,” “flow,” “threshold,” and “dynamic effect,” the actual functional equations, update rules, or explicit definitions of stock–flow relationships are not presented.

2. The state-of-the-art related to the mental states evaluation in industrial environments should be updated (e.g., include and discuss: https://www.mdpi.com/2076-3417/15/4/1822)

3. Although the model is conceptual, several key constructs, such as “sustained attention accumulation,” “acute stress thresholds,” “capacity degradation proportional to stress,” or “natural relaxation rate”, are physiological processes with well-documented non-linear behaviors. The model presents them as linear, additive, or rule-based, but without empirical justification.

4. The authors present a use case implemented in Vensim, but no quantitative comparison with empirical data is provided. The claim that the simulated outcomes “returned similar phenomena proposed by relevant studies” is anecdotal and not supported by systematic evidence.

5. The model meticulously incorporates dozens of elements (seven task load components, seven personal capacities, dynamic and static circumstantial stressors, multiple thresholds, two types of time load, multiple stress transitions). Yet the simulation example simplifies many of these.

6. The use case describes an imaginary worker and workstation in detail but does not provide: formal model inputs, numerical trajectories of stress stocks, performance outputs, visualizations of key model behavior.

Minor issues to be addressed:

- Figures 1–8 are informative but dense. Consider redesigning for improved readability

- The review is very extensive, but some claims would benefit from more recent neuroergonomics and psychophysiology literature.

- Some terms are excessively overlapping (e.g., “perceived workload,” “interacted load,” “workload component interaction”). A glossary may help.

Reviewer #2: The paper addresses a highly relevant and appealing research topic, and the proposed approach is clearly described. However, to enhance the quality of the work, the following issues should be addressed before the article can be considered for publication:

• The resolution of all figures is very low; most of the text within them is unreadable.

• It is unclear whether the text below each figure is intended to be part of the caption. If it is part of the caption, it is overly detailed and not sufficiently focused on the figure itself. If it is not part of the caption, then its purpose and connection to the main body of the manuscript (particularly on page 11) are not explained.

• The section on page 14 begins with the sentence “To validate the proposed concept,” but it is not clear which concept the authors are referring to. In the preceding section, only the problem formulation is presented; no model or conceptual framework is introduced.

• The task function introduced on page 17 is based on a 480-minute simulation. This seems inconsistent with the assumption of a 30-hour weekly workload stated on page 15.

• The process used to generate the results is not explained. No numerical values are provided, and it is unclear what type of simulation was performed. The authors should clarify what is meant by “simulation” and describe the methodology in detail.

• The discussion section is very limited, and it is unclear which specific results form the basis of the authors’ interpretations.

• A synthesis of the major gaps filled by the manuscript, along with further development of the approach, could help focus the results of the scientific investigation and propose future directions for development.

In summary, the manuscript presents the following strengths and weaknesses: the first part of the manuscript is well written and provides a clear and comprehensive literature review on stress, performance, and task load. This section effectively summarizes the existing body of research and offers a solid foundation for the study. In contrast, the second part of the manuscript, the model description and simulation appear less clear and lacks essential information. It is not evident what type of simulations were conducted, nor are the parameter values or assumptions used in the analysis adequately described. The discussion is limited, relying heavily on “simulated results,” whereas concrete, empirically grounded results would be expected. Additionally, the final section on model implementation feels somewhat forced and does not present a convincing or practical application of the proposed model. I encourage the authors to substantially revise and strengthen the second part of the manuscript to enhance clarity, rigor, and overall scientific contribution.

**********

-->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 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 For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy..-->

Reviewer #1: Yes: Vincenzo RoncaVincenzo Ronca

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.]

To ensure your figures meet our technical requirements, please review our figure guidelines: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/figures

You may also use PLOS’s free figure tool, NAAS, to help you prepare publication quality figures: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/figures#loc-tools-for-figure-preparation.

NAAS will assess whether your figures meet our technical requirements by comparing each figure against our figure specifications.

Conceptual Qualitative System Dynamics Model for Simulation of Perceived Workload, Stress and Performance from Industrial Work Content

PONE-D-25-57202R1

Dear Dr. Ruppert,

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  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,

Gerard Hutchinson, MD

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 #1: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed

**********

-->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 #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

-->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.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

**********

-->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 #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

-->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 #1: All the issues were addressed. Therefore, I do not have any other concerns and I recommend the manuscript for final publication.

Reviewer #2: The paper proposes a conceptual qualitative system dynamics model to simulate the stress and performance of workers in a given work environment and conditions.

The paper addresses a very interesting and appealing research topic; the approach and the topics discussed in the article are new and justify the interest in the publication. The structure of the paper is correct. The revisions adopted have improved the work. The suggestions proposed in the review report are included in the last draft of the paper. The major gaps filled by the manuscript are now described in “Model structure and simulated scenarios ”, and “Results”. The mistakes identified in the previous draft of the paper have been corrected.

Well done!

**********

-->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 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 For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy..-->

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes: Francesco FacchiniFrancesco Facchini

**********