Evaluation of flow, supply, and demand for noise reduction in urban area, Hamadan in Iran

Shiva Gharibi; Kamran Shayesteh

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0303581

Peer Review History

Original SubmissionJuly 25, 2023
31 Oct 2023 Decision Letter - Chih-Da Wu, Editor PONE-D-23-22927Evaluation of flow, supply, and demand for noise reduction in urban area, Hamadan in IranPLOS ONE Dear Dr. Gharibi, 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 Dec 15 2023 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, Chih-Da Wu 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. Thank you for stating the following in your Competing Interests section: “I have read the journal's policy and the authors of this manuscript have the following competing interests: ☒ The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.” 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. 3. We note that you have stated that you will provide repository information for your data at acceptance. Should your manuscript be accepted for publication, we will hold it until you provide the relevant accession numbers or DOIs necessary to access your data. If you wish to make changes to your Data Availability statement, please describe these changes in your cover letter and we will update your Data Availability statement 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. Please see the following video for instructions on linking an ORCID iD to your Editorial Manager account: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_xcclfuvtxQ 5. Please amend either the title on the online submission form (via Edit Submission) or the title in the manuscript so that they are identical. 6. We note that Figures 1,2,3,4,5,6,10 and 11 in your submission contain [map/satellite] images which may be copyrighted. All PLOS content is published under the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY 4.0), which means that the manuscript, images, and Supporting Information files will be freely available online, and any third party is permitted to access, download, copy, distribute, and use these materials in any way, even commercially, with proper attribution. For these reasons, we cannot publish previously copyrighted maps or satellite images created using proprietary data, such as Google software (Google Maps, Street View, and Earth). For more information, see our copyright guidelines: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/licenses-and-copyright. We require you to either (1) present written permission from the copyright holder to publish these figures specifically under the CC BY 4.0 license, or (2) remove the figures from your submission: a. You may seek permission from the original copyright holder of Figures 1,2,3,4,5,6,10 and 11 to publish the content specifically under the CC BY 4.0 license. We recommend that you contact the original copyright holder with the Content Permission Form (http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=7c09/content-permission-form.pdf) and the following text: “I request permission for the open-access journal PLOS ONE to publish XXX under the Creative Commons Attribution License (CCAL) CC BY 4.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). Please be aware that this license allows unrestricted use and distribution, even commercially, by third parties. Please reply and provide explicit written permission to publish XXX under a CC BY license and complete the attached form.” Please upload the completed Content Permission Form or other proof of granted permissions as an "Other" file with your submission. In the figure caption of the copyrighted figure, please include the following text: “Reprinted from [ref] under a CC BY license, with permission from [name of publisher], original copyright [original copyright year].” b. If you are unable to obtain permission from the original copyright holder to publish these figures under the CC BY 4.0 license or if the copyright holder’s requirements are incompatible with the CC BY 4.0 license, please either i) remove the figure or ii) supply a replacement figure that complies with the CC BY 4.0 license. Please check copyright information on all replacement figures and update the figure caption with source information. If applicable, please specify in the figure caption text when a figure is similar but not identical to the original image and is therefore for illustrative purposes only. The following resources for replacing copyrighted map figures may be helpful: USGS National Map Viewer (public domain): http://viewer.nationalmap.gov/viewer/ The Gateway to Astronaut Photography of Earth (public domain): http://eol.jsc.nasa.gov/sseop/clickmap/ Maps at the CIA (public domain): https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/index.html and https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/cia-maps-publications/index.html NASA Earth Observatory (public domain): http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/ Landsat: http://landsat.visibleearth.nasa.gov/ USGS EROS (Earth Resources Observatory and Science (EROS) Center) (public domain): http://eros.usgs.gov/# Natural Earth (public domain): http://www.naturalearthdata.com/ [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: Yes 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: 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 study aims to investigate the match and mismatch of supply and demand for noise reduction in the Hamadan urban area. Here are my recommendations about the paper: 1. The organization of the introduction section is not elaborate. It repeatedly mentions a single concept across various disjointed segments. Authors are required to restructure it in a more coherent manner to effectively convey the intended message. 2. In the introduction, consider adding relevant statistics about the topic and study area. This can help set the context and highlight the research's significance. 3. The paper requires another round of proofreading to significantly enhance some sentences. Few examples are below: Introduction - L31-32: One million lives healthy years of life are lost annually in Europe due to the effect of exposure to traffic noise. Introduction - L45-47: In general, ecosystem services are the conditions and processes through which natural ecosystems and the species that make them up, enhance human well-being. Quantification and mapping of the demand for noise pollution reduction - L195-196: Demand analysis, based on extracting the sound level from the sound flow map and comparing it with the standard sound limits in these uses, can reflect the demand in each land use. Discussion and Conclusion - L359-360: Therefore, sound measuring stations were selected so that the ground between the sound source and the receiver would paved and asphalted. 4. In the methodology section, it would be beneficial to provide straightforward definitions for 'flow,' 'supply,' and 'demand' concerning noise reduction. Additionally, considering that the methodology contains numerous subsections, it can be challenging for readers to gain a comprehensive understanding. Therefore, it is advisable to consolidate these subsections into a single section for clarity. 5. In the section on quantifying and mapping traffic noise flow, it mentions the use of the Kriging method to classify noise pollution zone maps. However, there is no explanation provided for this method. Please consider adding an explanation, especially for readers who may not be familiar with it. 6. The quantification and mapping of the supply of noise pollution reduction section is somewhat unclear. The explanation for the two approaches is insufficient, making it difficult to follow the text. It is recommended that the authors provide a comprehensive explanation for the first approach and then proceed to explain the second one 7. In the results section, in lines 222-223, the text mentions that "The GIs were divided into six main categories: agricultural lands, gardens, parks, grass and abandoned lands, single trees, as well as street trees." To make this clearer, it would be helpful to explain the unique characteristics that define each category. Furthermore, offering an explanation for the difference between "single trees" and "street trees" would enhance understanding. Additionally, has this classification approach been used in previous studies? 8. In the Results section, lines 223-224, percentages are provided for five categories (amounting to a total of 100 percent). However, what about the sixth category? 9. Results contain no surprises. Have you learned anything that's not in previous, or do you just confirm common knowledge? 10. The discussion and conclusion sections are quite lengthy and lack coherence. They tend to repeat the results from the results section. It would be beneficial to merge them with the results section to create a new section named 'Results and Discussion,' and then have a separate 'Conclusion' section encompassing the paper's summary (results and discussion), limitations, suggestions for future studies, and practical applications. Reviewer #2: In my opinion, the manuscript demonstrates scientific suitability for publication. I would highly recommend conducting a thorough grammar check for the work. While the content is legible, there are still instances of poor statements that require rectification. It is advisable to include a concluding recommendation in the abstract. ****** 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. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0303581.r001
Revision 1
20 Jan 2024 Author Response Manuscript Number: PONE-D-23-22927 Full Title: Evaluation of flow, supply, and demand for noise reduction in urban area, Hamadan in Iran Dear Academic Editor, Chih-Da Wu we appreciate the editor and the reviewers for their detailed observations and comments on the manuscript. All changes can be seen in the manuscript. We have fulfilled their comments and suggestions and wish to submit a revised version of the manuscript for further consideration in the journal. Changes in the revised version of the manuscript are highlighted in green. Below, we also provide a point-by-point response explaining how we have addressed each reviewer's and editors’ comments. all tracked changes are visible in red. We hope it will be accepted. Please let me know if there are any changes required. (supplementary data, maps, and attribute tables are ready and can be available). Yours sincerely, Authors Reviewer #1: Major Revision Comments 1) The organization of the introduction section is not elaborate. It repeatedly mentions a single concept across various disjointed segments. Authors are required to restructure it in a more coherent manner to convey the intended message effectively. Revised 2) In the introduction, consider adding relevant statistics about the topic and study area. This can help set the context and highlight the research's significance. Because there are no statistics that completely match the topic (supply and demand), therefore, the presentation of statistics has been omitted. But it will be added if necessary. 3) The paper requires another round of proofreading to significantly enhance some sentences. A few examples are below: Grammatically, not only the few mentioned below but the entire text has been revised. � Introduction - L31-32: One million lives and healthy years of life are lost annually in Europe due to the effect of exposure to traffic noise. Revised � Introduction - L45-47: In general, ecosystem services are the conditions and processes through which natural ecosystems and the species that make them up, enhance human well-being. Revised � Quantification and mapping of the demand for noise pollution reduction - L195-196: Demand analysis, based on extracting the sound level from the sound flow map and comparing it with the standard sound limits in these uses, can reflect the demand in each land use. Revised � Discussion and Conclusion - L359-360: Therefore, sound measuring stations were selected so that the ground between the sound source and the receiver would paved and asphalted. Revised 4) In the methodology section, it would be beneficial to provide straightforward definitions for 'flow,' 'supply,' and 'demand' concerning noise reduction. Additionally, considering that the methodology contains numerous subsections, it can be challenging for readers to gain a comprehensive understanding. Therefore, it is advisable to consolidate these subsections into a single section for clarity. Done 5) In the section on quantifying and mapping traffic noise flow, it mentions the use of the Kriging method to classify noise pollution zone maps. However, there is no explanation provided for this method. Please consider adding an explanation, especially for readers who may not be familiar with it. Added 6) The quantification and mapping of the supply of noise pollution reduction section is somewhat unclear. The explanation for the two approaches is insufficient, making it difficult to follow the text. It is recommended that the authors provide a comprehensive explanation for the first approach and then proceed to explain the second one. Revised 7) In the results section, in lines 222-223, the text mentions that "The GIs were divided into six main categories: agricultural lands, gardens, parks, grass and abandoned lands, single trees, as well as street trees." To make this clearer, it would be helpful to explain the unique characteristics that define each category. Furthermore, offering an explanation for the difference between "single trees" and "street trees" would enhance understanding. Additionally, has this classification approach been used in previous studies? Revised. These 6 groups were divided based on the authors' opinion. 8) In the Results section, lines 223-224, percentages are provided for five categories (amounting to a total of 100 percent). However, what about the sixth category? Revised 9) Results contain no surprises. Have you learned anything that's not in previous, or do you just confirm common knowledge? The results obtained are seen in very few studies and no articles with this detail has investigated the effect of distance and sound barrier on noise reduction at the same time. Also, the purpose of this study was not only to investigate the effect of sound barrier and distance on noise reduction but also to introduce the method of evaluating supply and demand for this type of ecosystem service which is the first study of its kind. 10) The discussion and conclusion sections are quite lengthy and lack coherence. They tend to repeat the results from the results section. It would be beneficial to merge them with the results section to create a new section named 'Results and Discussion,' and then have a separate 'Conclusion' section encompassing the paper's summary (results and discussion), limitations, suggestions for future studies, and practical applications. Revised Reviewer #2: Major Revision Comments In my opinion, the manuscript demonstrates scientific suitability for publication. I would highly recommend conducting a thorough grammar check for the work. While the content is legible, there are still instances of poor statements that require rectification. It is advisable to include a concluding recommendation in the abstract. Grammatically, the whole text was revised. Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0303581.r002
27 Feb 2024 Decision Letter - Chih-Da Wu, Editor PONE-D-23-22927R1Evaluation of flow, supply, and demand for noise reduction in urban area, Hamadan in IranPLOS ONE Dear Dr. Gharibi, 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 12 2024 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, Chih-Da Wu Academic Editor PLOS ONE Journal Requirements: Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice. [Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.] 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) ******** 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 ****** 3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: 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 ****** 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 ****** 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: The manuscript has shown significant improvement. However, there are still some areas that require modification. Please find my comments below: 1. Since there are numerous modifications, it is advisable to completely rewrite paragraphs instead of merely crossing out and adding new parts. In the current situation, it becomes challenging for reviewers to navigate through the manuscript. 2. In the introduction section, lines 75-76, the presented statistic appears inaccurate: "At least 1.6 million lives are lost every year in Europe due to traffic noise exposure [1]." 3. In line 191, could you clarify the meaning of "systematically and randomly" in the context of choosing the location? 4. Several minor grammatical errors persist in the text. For instance: • Line 583: "dstance." 5. The title for Figure 4 requires correction. According to the legend, the traffic noise flow with barrier corresponds to the left-hand side figure. However, the title states: "Sound level without considering the sound barrier effect (left)." Additionally, for the right-side figure, the legend mentions "traffic noise flow without barriers," while the title reads: "Traffic noise flow and locations of hotspots (right)." Please align the titles with the corresponding figures in the legend. ****** 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 ******** [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. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0303581.r003
Revision 2
7 Mar 2024 Author Response Manuscript Number: PONE-D-23-22927 Full Title: Evaluation of flow, supply, and demand for noise reduction in urban area, Hamadan in Iran Dear Academic Editor, Chih-Da Wu we appreciate the editor and the reviewers for their detailed observations and comments on the manuscript. All changes can be seen in the manuscript. We have fulfilled their comments and suggestions and wish to submit a revised version of the manuscript for further consideration in the journal. Changes in the revised version of the manuscript are highlighted in red. Below, we also provide a point-by-point response explaining how we have addressed each reviewer's comments. We hope it will be accepted. Please let me know if there are any changes required. (supplementary data, maps, and attribute tables are ready and can be available). Yours sincerely, Authors Reviewer #1: The manuscript has shown significant improvement. However, there are still some areas that require modification. Please find my comments below: 1. Since there are numerous modifications, it is advisable to completely rewrite paragraphs instead of merely crossing out and adding new parts. In the current situation, it becomes challenging for reviewers to navigate through the manuscript. All changes have been made in previous version. The final version was attached without track changes. 2. In the introduction section, lines 75-76, the presented statistic appears inaccurate: "At least 1.6 million lives are lost every year in Europe due to traffic noise exposure [1]." revised 3. In line 191, could you clarify the meaning of "systematically and randomly" in the context of choosing the location? Revised 4. Several minor grammatical errors persist in the text. For instance. • Line 583: "dstance." : Edited. 5. The title for Figure 4 requires correction. According to the legend, the traffic noise flow with barrier corresponds to the left-hand side figure. However, the title states: "Sound level without considering the sound barrier effect (left)." Additionally, for the right-side figure, the legend mentions "traffic noise flow without barriers," while the title reads: "Traffic noise flow and locations of hotspots (right)." Please align the titles with the corresponding figures in the legend. Edited. Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers&#39.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0303581.r004
23 Apr 2024 Decision Letter - Chih-Da Wu, Editor Evaluation of flow, supply, and demand for noise reduction in urban area, Hamadan in Iran PONE-D-23-22927R2 Dear Dr. Gharibi, 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. If you have any questions relating to publication charges, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org. 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, Chih-Da Wu 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) ******** 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 ****** 3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: 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 ****** 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 ****** 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: The authors have made necessary improvements; however, the title for Fig. 3 is still incorrect: Fig. 3 Title: "Fig 3. Traffic noise flow and locations of hotspots with considering (left); and without considering the sound barrier effect (left) based on the Kriging method" Both descriptions in the title refer to the left map. ****** 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 ******** https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0303581.r005
Formally Accepted
10 May 2024 Acceptance Letter - Chih-Da Wu, Editor PONE-D-23-22927R2 PLOS ONE Dear Dr. Gharibi, I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now being handed over to our production team. At this stage, our production department will prepare your paper for publication. This includes ensuring the following: * All references, tables, and figures are properly cited * All relevant supporting information is included in the manuscript submission, * There are no issues that prevent the paper from being properly typeset If revisions are needed, the production department will contact you directly to resolve them. If no revisions are needed, you will receive an email when the publication date has been set. At this time, we do not offer pre-publication proofs to authors during production of the accepted work. Please keep in mind that we are working through a large volume of accepted articles, so please give us a few weeks to review your paper and let you know the next and final steps. Lastly, if your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. 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. If we can help with anything else, please email us at customercare@plos.org. Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access. Kind regards, PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff on behalf of Professor Chih-Da Wu Academic Editor PLOS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0303581.r006

Open letter on the publication of peer review reports

PLOS recognizes the benefits of transparency in the peer review process. Therefore, we enable the publication of all of the content of peer review and author responses alongside final, published articles. Reviewers remain anonymous, unless they choose to reveal their names.

We encourage other journals to join us in this initiative. We hope that our action inspires the community, including researchers, research funders, and research institutions, to recognize the benefits of published peer review reports for all parts of the research system.

Learn more at ASAPbio .