-->PONE-D-26-00953-->-->Comparative Analysis of Temperature Effect on Bandgap Characteristics in 1D Phononic Crystals: Periodic Versus Quasiperiodic structures-->-->PLOS One

Dear Dr. A. Elsayed,

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 Apr 22 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.

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

• 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 https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Talaat Abdel Hamid, 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. 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. Thank you for stating in your Funding Statement:

[The authors acknowledge Princess Nourah bint Abdulrahman University Researchers Supporting Project number (PNURSP2025R737), Princess Nourah bint Abdulrahman University, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.].

Please provide an amended statement that declares *all* the funding or sources of support (whether external or internal to your organization) received during this study, as detailed online in our guide for authors at http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submit-now. Please also include the statement “There was no additional external funding received for this study.” in your updated Funding Statement.

Please include your amended Funding Statement within your cover letter. We will change the online submission form on your behalf.

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

[The authors acknowledge Princess Nourah bint Abdulrahman University Researchers Supporting Project number (PNURSP2025R737), Princess Nourah bint Abdulrahman University, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.]

We note that you have provided funding information that is 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 authors acknowledge Princess Nourah bint Abdulrahman University Researchers Supporting Project number (PNURSP2025R737), Princess Nourah bint Abdulrahman University, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.]

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

5. Please include a separate caption for each figure in your manuscript.

6. We note that the captions for your main Figures and Tables are similar on what is indicated in the Supporting Information file.

Please confirm the intended placement for these captions. If these are indeed part of the main manuscript, kindly remove the file with “Supporting Information” captions to prevent redundancy.

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

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #1: N/A

Reviewer #2: I Don't Know

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.-->

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: 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

Reviewer #3: 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:

1. Please review the text to ensure that acronyms are not defined twice (e.g., PnC). Also, once an acronym is defined, it should be used (e.g., PnBG).

2. There is a vast literature on quasi-periodic phononic crystals. The presented literature review should position this work relative to the existing ones.

3. The historical background in the Introduction does not seem necessary for the context of the presented research.

4. The authors present a realization with “three unit cells”. However, when discussing band diagrams, one refers to periodic structures. Why presenting a finite structure at this point?

5. “In the analysis of the transmission spectrum, Young’s modulus, density, and shear stress are critical

parameters, as illustrated in figure 1”. Figure 1 does not deal with material parameters.

6. The authors explicitly mention the Poisson’s ratios for the two considered materials, but other material properties are not textually described.

7. The authors should include references for the interested reader concerning basic phenomena involving band gap formation (e.g., Bragg scattering) and the formulation of the mathematical model for obtaining transmission spectra.

8. Eq. (1) should be a part of a wider system of equations (including other directions). It is not clear what assumptions concerning the types of propagating waves and boundary conditions the authors have assumed.

9. Both lambda and mu refer to Lame parameters. However, mu is also recognized as the shear modulus (not shearing). Please verify along the manuscript if there are other typos.

10. After Eq. (9), the authors mention a component of shear stress. But so far, the presented equations referred to the propagation of longitudinal waves. Please clarify.

11. The authors mention “angle of incidence”, but the presented structure is a waveguide. Therefore, what does this angle refer to? If this involves incident acoustic waves, this is not clear from the discussion. In this case, also, the numerical methods utilized in the work should be discussed.

12. Where was the data from Fig. 2 obtained from? Did the authors use a reference or measure it?

13. Figs. 3 and 4 seem to represent a parametric sweep (not an optimization, which involves setting an objective function, constraints, etc.).

14. Figures 6-9 are only qualitatively described, but this should also be done quantitatively.

Reviewer #2: My Comments are given below:

1.The abstract initially refers to “magnetic field sensing,” whereas the study focuses on temperature sensing. Can the authors clarify this inconsistency and clearly define the primary sensing mechanism investigated?

2.Several studies have already explored periodic and quasiperiodic 1D phononic crystals for sensing applications. What is the clear quantitative advancement of this work beyond existing literature, particularly regarding bandgap enhancement and sensitivity improvement?

3.Why were tungsten and polycrystalline silicon specifically selected? Were alternative material combinations evaluated for higher acoustic impedance contrast or improved thermal stability?

4.The temperature range extends from 293 K to 1673 K. Considering material limitations (e.g., oxidation, phase stability), how realistic is this range for practical implementation of the proposed sensor?

5.The model assumes ideal interfaces and longitudinal wave propagation. How would interface roughness, mode conversion (shear waves), or thermoelastic damping affect the reported bandgap and sensitivity results?

6.Sensitivity is defined only based on bandgap width variation. Why was resonance frequency shift not considered, as it is commonly more precise for sensing applications?

7.The manuscript mentions 5% fabrication tolerances analyzed via Monte Carlo simulations.

How many iterations were performed?

Were statistical confidence intervals calculated?

How do these uncertainties quantitatively impact sensitivity?

8.Although Fibonacci shows the widest bandgap, periodic structures show more stable sensitivity. Could the authors provide a normalized performance metric combining both bandwidth and stability to identify the optimal design objectively?

9.Figure 16 shows negative sensitivity values (e.g., −500 Hz/K to −1000 Hz/K). What is the physical interpretation of negative sensitivity in this context?

10.The proposed structure involves millimeter-scale layers (e.g., up to 9 mm thickness).

What fabrication technique is envisioned?

Has scalability toward MEMS-compatible dimensions been considered?

Reviewer #3: This manuscript presents a comparative numerical investigation of temperature-dependent bandgap behavior in 1D tungsten/polycrystalline silicon phononic crystals, examining periodic and several quasiperiodic configurations (Fibonacci, Thue–Morse, double-periodic, and Cantor). The topic is relevant to acoustic wave engineering and sensing applications, and the attempt to systematically compare multiple deterministic aperiodic sequences under identical material platforms is commendable. The inclusion of fabrication tolerances and Monte Carlo–based robustness analysis adds practical value.

However, the manuscript in its current form requires substantial clarification and strengthening before it can be considered for publication. First, the novelty claim is somewhat overstated, as comparative studies of quasiperiodic phononic crystals for bandgap engineering are well represented in the literature; the authors should more clearly delineate what fundamentally new physical insight is provided beyond incremental parametric comparison. Second, the physical model lacks sufficient detail regarding boundary conditions, convergence testing, normalization procedures, and validation against either analytical limits or prior experimental/theoretical benchmarks. The temperature range up to 1673 K appears extremely high for polycrystalline silicon and tungsten multilayers, yet material stability and thermo-mechanical constraints are not discussed. The definition of sensitivity based solely on bandgap width variation may oversimplify sensing performance; resonance frequency shift or Q-factor analysis would provide a more rigorous metric. Additionally, the manuscript contains significant language issues, repetition, and organizational redundancy that obscure the key findings. Figures are extensively described but not critically interpreted in terms of physical mechanisms. Overall, while the study has potential, major revisions are necessary to clarify methodology, strengthen physical justification, moderate claims of novelty, and improve scientific rigor and presentation quality.

**********

-->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

Reviewer #3: Yes:Abrar Islam

**********

[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.

Comparative Analysis of Temperature Effect on Bandgap Characteristics in 1D Phononic Crystals: Periodic Versus Quasiperiodic structures

PONE-D-26-00953R1

Dear Dr. A. Elsayed,

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,

Talaat Abdel Hamid, 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 #1: (No Response)

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?

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

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #1: N/A

Reviewer #2: I Don't Know

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.-->

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: No

**********

-->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

Reviewer #3: 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: 1. The first comment concerns the definition of acronyms. The authors have replied to a distinct inquiry.

2. Nonetheless, an ideal structure does not consist of “three unit cells”, but rather, an infinite number.

3. Despite my previous comment, the authors still refer to the selection of “optimal” angles.

Reviewer #2: Author answered all the questions properly.The paper can be accepted in its present form for publication.

Reviewer #3: Authors have addressed the reviewers' comments well in the update version. The revised manuscript is acceptable as is.

**********

-->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 #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

Reviewer #3: Yes:Abrar Islam

**********