Dear Dr. Gong,

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 Feb 19 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.. 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.

• A 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 . 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,

Rui Cheng

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 you have indicated that there are restrictions to data sharing for this study. PLOS only allows data to be available upon request if there are legal or ethical restrictions on sharing data publicly. For more information on unacceptable data access restrictions, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-unacceptable-data-access-restrictions.

Before we proceed with your manuscript, please address the following prompts:

a) If there are ethical or legal restrictions on sharing a de-identified data set, please explain them in detail (e.g., data contain potentially identifying or sensitive patient information, data are owned by a third-party organization, etc.) and who has imposed them (e.g., a Research Ethics Committee or Institutional Review Board, etc.). Please also provide contact information for a data access committee, ethics committee, or other institutional body to which data requests may be sent.

b) If there are no restrictions, please upload the minimal anonymized data set necessary to replicate your study findings 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. You also have the option of uploading the data as Supporting Information files, but we would recommend depositing data directly to a data repository if possible.

We will update your Data Availability statement on your behalf to reflect the information you provide.

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. 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?

Reviewer #1: Partly

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

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 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: No

Reviewer #2: No

Reviewer #3: No

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

Reviewer #1: The paper focuses on the carbon footprint and impact resistance of alloy steel W-beam guardrails, and the topic is in line with the current demand for green and safe coordinated development of transportation infrastructure under the background of "dual carbon". It has certain application value. The paper lacks innovation in experimental design, result analysis, and computational evaluation, and the relevant content is relatively brief. The specific opinions are as follows:

(1) The paper only lists relevant survey data tables in the materials and methods section, and the corresponding software is used for calculation and evaluation. There are problems such as insufficient innovation in theoretical calculation methods and insufficient data analysis of the research results in the paper.

(2) The results section of the paper lacks sufficient discussion on the design and analysis of carbon footprint and collision resistance experiments, and only uses platform calculation data analysis, lacking issues such as emission factors, case calculation processes, and software parameter settings.

In summary, it is recommended to reject the manuscript

Reviewer #2: The reviewers recommend publication but also suggest some modifications to your manuscript. Therefore, I invite you to respond to the reviewers' comments and revise your manuscript accordingly.

Comment:

This study represents high-quality engineering applied research, systematically evaluating the comprehensive benefits of novel alloy steel corrugated beam guardrails in terms of safety performance (impact resistance) and full-life-cycle carbon footprint. The research topic closely aligns with global and China's “dual carbon” strategy and the demand for green infrastructure upgrades, demonstrating clear practical significance and application value. The research framework is comprehensive, integrating material composition design, production processes (ESP), full-scale vehicle crash tests (SB-level), and life cycle assessment (LCA) based on ISO standards. The data is detailed, and the argumentation is logically sound. The core conclusion—that synergistic improvements in safety performance and significant carbon emission reductions can be achieved through material and process innovation—is highly instructive. It provides robust data support and a feasible technical pathway for the sustainable development of highway guardrails. The manuscript is generally publication-ready, requiring only minor refinements and clarifications in the following areas to further enhance its rigor, reproducibility, and clarity of expression.

1. Minor Language and Formatting Revisions

(1) Issue: The manuscript's language is generally sound, but minor typographical errors and formatting inconsistencies remain.

(2) Recommendation: On page 4 of the main text, the formula caption below the equation contains a typesetting error: “EPcisthe characterized value...” should be corrected to “EPc is the characterized value...”.

2. Additional details in the Methods section may be added to enhance the reproducibility of the study.

Recommendations:

(1) Briefly describe the sensor type used to measure occupant acceleration/velocity and the data acquisition frequency in Section 2.4 or the figure captions.

(2) In the “Materials and Methods” section, it is recommended to mention the commercial designation or in-house designation of the alloy steel for academic citation purposes.

3. Data availability statement requires revision to comply with journal policy

(1) Issue: The data availability statement on page 5 of the manuscript contains contradictions. The authors initially selected “No - some restrictions will apply,” yet stated in the text box that “All relevant data are within the manuscript and its Supporting Information files.” These statements are mutually exclusive, and the latter claim is not substantiated by the supporting information files. PLOS ONE's data policy is highly stringent; blanket restrictions citing “commercial confidentiality” are typically unacceptable.

(2) Recommendation: Authors should revise this statement to comply with the policy.

Reviewer #3: "Carbon Footprint Assessment and Crashworthiness Evaluation of Alloy Steel W-beam Guardrails" (PONE-D-25-60856) investigates the synergistic assessment of safety performance and full-life-cycle carbon footprint for alloy steel corrugated beam guardrails. Integrating material design, ESP short-process manufacturing, LCA quantitative analysis, and full-vehicle crash testing, it demonstrates practical engineering value and application orientation. However, the manuscript requires significant strengthening in theoretical depth, comparative rigor, and data support.

1.The introduction begins by simply listing 15 papers, which significantly undermines the perceived quality and credibility of this paper. In fact, there is already a substantial body of international research on steel guardrails, safety performance assessments, and the application of LCA in transportation infrastructure. This field is by no means in its infancy. The author should objectively admit the existing research foundation and define the innovation point of this paper by clarifying the research object, evaluation scale or method.

2.The author employs PSE as a key material metric; however, this metric is not a universally accepted parameter in guardrail safety evaluations. Supporting references demonstrating its application within the guardrail field must be provided to substantiate the direct correlation between this metric and crashworthiness.

3.The article mentions that the maximum dynamic lateral deflection of alloy steel guardrails is 3.2% lower than that of Q235 steel. Does this reduction hold substantive safety significance in guardrail engineering practice? It is recommended to include a comparison with the margin relative to code-specified limits.

4.The text repeatedly compares the new guardrail with the traditional Q235 guardrail, but does not specify the data source for the Q235 guardrail. If citing data, consistency in operating conditions must be clarified. If this is a parallel test conducted under identical conditions, please present the corresponding data charts for the Q235 group.

5.The LCA results showed a reduction of up to 73.8%, but the sensitivity of key parameters was not assessed.

6.Figure 4 displays the acceleration time history curve. Please specify in the figure caption or text which filtering method was used, as raw data typically contains significant noise, and the filtering approach directly impacts peak readings.

7.The Discussion and Conclusions section contains excessive repetition and, in some instances, engineering report-style language. Academic editing is recommended to refine the article.

8.Although the manuscript emphasizes environmental benefits, cost considerations remain essential for engineering applications. Alloy steels and nanocoatings typically carry higher costs. It is recommended to include a brief cost-benefit analysis in the Discussion section comparing the construction costs of the two guardrail types.

**********

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 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 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: 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.]

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.

Carbon Footprint Assessment and Crashworthiness Evaluation of Alloy Steel W-beam Guardrails

PONE-D-25-60856R1

Dear Dr. Gong,

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  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,

Rui Cheng

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

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: 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: No

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: 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 #1: The paper proposes a systematic research framework that combines material design, process optimization, safety performance verification, and environmental assessment to address the green transformation needs of traffic safety facilities in the context of China's "dual carbon" goals. The revised manuscript has a reasonable content and method design, clear conclusions, and a high overall volume. The revised manuscript has fully responded to the previous review comments, especially in terms of method details, sensitivity analysis, comparative experimental data, cost-benefit analysis, etc. It has made substantial supplements, significantly improving the completeness and academic standardization of the paper. But the paper has the following issues:

1. Some of the language expressions in the paper are not concise enough and need further refinement.

2. Some of the figures in the paper are not clear enough and need to be modified. At the same time, key parameters should be supplemented in the figures.

Overall, it is recommended to revise and hire

Reviewer #2: All my previous comments have been addressed. The manuscript is acceptable. I have no further comments.

Reviewer #3: The authors have provided a substantive response to the initial review comments, significantly improving the manuscript's quality. While the revision is generally strong, a few technical details could be further refined from an expert perspective:

1.Some of the tables in the article do not comply with the “three-line table” format commonly used in international journals.

2.Although raw data are provided in the supporting information , the main text lacks comparative acceleration-time curves for the alloy steel and Q235 guardrails under representative impact conditions. From an expert perspective, peak values in Table 8 alone are insufficient to demonstrate the energy-absorption advantages derived from the high PSE of alloy steel.

**********

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 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 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: No

Reviewer #3: No

**********