Weibull Reliability Based on Random Vibration Performance for Fiber Optic Connectors

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Refer to the attachment.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1- It is strongly suggested to edit the final version of the manuscript by a native english editor. 

2- Is the humidity cause the stress in the system?

3- It is better to remove lines 57-60, and the innovation of the current work should be bolded in more details. 

4- Regarding the introduction section, particularly end of this section, the novelty of the current research compared to other studies is not clear. 

5- This manuscript has been provided as a report and not a scientific paper and it is strongly suggested to resubmit in this Journal or submit in others after rewritting. 

6- Regarding section 2.2, the data is not described in details and need to be extended. 

7- The number section of 2.2 are duplicated. 

8- Related to LC and SC types, it is better to show both types as images. 

9- In section 3, it is stated that "In the validation process of the experimental results", it means that the experimental results needs validation ???

10- I believe that there are three parameters in  Weibull module, however, the authors focused on two of them, why?

11- Please check the PSD diagram in Figure 1. 

12- Regarding piezoelectric accelerometer, it should be shown which type of sensor, its characteristics, ....

13- Discussion section is not okay and should be rewritten based on the physical reasons .

14- Conclusion section should include th most important achievement of the current research and should be rewritten . In addition, I can not find any future research path.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

It is strongly suggested to edit the final version of the manuscript by a native english editor. 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors presented a manuscript entitled “Weibull Reliability Based on Random Vibration Performance for Fiber Optic Connectors”. The manuscript evaluates the reliability of fiber optic connectors under random vibration using Weibull statistical modeling. The authors analyze insertion loss (IL) signals collected during a 6-hour random vibration test and fit the data using two- and three-parameter Weibull distributions. The Weibull parameters (shape and scale) are extracted, and reliability and hazard functions are discussed to support system qualification under vibrational stress. However, significant revisions are required to improve the manuscript's clarity, depth, and academic rigor. Below are the detailed comments and suggestions for improvement.
1.    Abstract lacks quantitative findings (e.g., shape/scale values, R², or failure thresholds).
2.    Introduction lacks detailed literature review on fiber optic connector failure modes under mechanical load, especially, IEC 61300-2-1, MIL-STD-810 vibration standards and optical power degradation from micromovement/contact instability
3.    No justification why 3-param is more accurate. Discuss with AIC or BIC comparison.
4.    Explain why connector performance degrades under vibration fretting, debris, loss of contact alignment?
5.    Compare results to existing connector reliability tests or lifetime estimation models.
6.    Discuss implications for product design or testing (e.g., connector reinforcement or strain relief).

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper investigates the reliability analysis of fiber optic connectors in random vibration environments, incorporating the Weibull distribution model.

1. It is suggested to compare the effect of different wavelengths (1310 nm vs. 1550 nm) on IL in the discussion section to enhance the comprehensiveness of the results.
2. The IL measurements in Fig. 4 can be further hierarchically presented (e.g., by axis or wavelength) to improve readability.
3. Add a description of the basis for the selection of the sample size (n=21) and whether statistical significance or power analysis was considered.
4. It is recommended to simplify some of the theoretical descriptions in the introduction section and focus on what is directly relevant to this study.
5. The distinction from previous studies, such as comparative or innovative presentations, should be made clear.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This manuscript can be accepted.

Author Response

There were no adjustments required from Reviewer 1 in round 2.

His/her comments and suggestions for authors were: This manuscript can be accepted.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors tried to provide revision manuscript based on the reviewers comments and also they answered comments one by one. In aditition, it is clear that the quality of manuscript increase in new version. However, I believe that it can not be published yet and needs minor revision as follows:

1- The final version of the manuscript should be editted by a native english editor because there are some unclear sentences in the text. 

2- The clear sentences should be removed becasue the readers such as engineers know general information. 

3- Regarding Figure 3 in the new version of the manuscript, it is necessary to write the special features of sensor. 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Final version of the manuscript should be editted by a native english editor because there are some unclear sentences in the text. Moreover, clear sentences should be removed becasue the readers such as engineers know general information. 

Author Response

Comments 1: The final version of the manuscript should be editted by a native english editor because there are some unclear sentences in the text. 

Response 1: The manuscript has been edited by a native English speaker.

Comment 2: The clear sentences should be removed becasue the readers such as engineers know general information. 

Response 2: The manuscript was rewritten to avoid clear sentences.

Comment 3: Regarding Figure 3 in the new version of the manuscript, it is necessary to write the special features of sensor. 

Response 3: A text with the special features of the sensor was included in Figure 3. 

 

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have now revised the manuscript and addressed the comments as suggested. 
I recommend publishing it.

Author Response

There were no adjustments required from Reviewer 3 in round 2.

His/her comments and suggestions for authors were: The authors have now revised the manuscript and addressed the comments as suggested. I recommend publishing it.