Managing university e-learning environments and academic achievement in the United Arab Emirates: An instructor and student perspective

Alberto Ibanez Fernandez; Ahmed Al Radaideh; Gyanendra Singh Sisodia; Asok Mathew; Juan Antonio Jimber del Río

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0268338

Peer Review History

Original SubmissionDecember 27, 2021
21 Feb 2022 Decision Letter - Heng Luo, Editor PONE-D-21-40699Managing University e-Learning Environments and Academic Achievement An Instructor and Student perspective.PLOS ONE Dear Dr. Ibanez, 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. ============================== Specifically, please consider the following during your revision:1) Please improve the introduction section with a proper description of the research background that emphasizes the importance of your research topic. Please justify the significance of your study with a brief summary of previous literature and their limitations, as well as the unique contribution of your study. (There are many research studies on online learning during Covid-19 pandemic, what makes your study necessary and unique?) 2) Consider revising your discussion section. First, please ensure that your discussion are based on the research findings. You can use sub-headings in discussion to make your argument more structured. Second, when citing other research studies in discussion, we try to link our results to previous findings (either in support or contradiction) or use previous literature to explain your own findings... I feel sometimes your reference lacks connection to your own results and sounds like part of general literature review (e.g., the second paragraph of discussion) Third, please consider using the first sentence of each paragraph as the summary of the paragraph content or topic of argument. The remaining sentences in the paragraph simply build upon the first sentence, providing elaboration, literature support or empirical evidence. I found in many occasions that the topic sentence is hided in the middle of paragraph or placed at the end of it. (3) There are many related literature regarding online learning during Covid-19, I believe the results can be used to compare and contrast your own findings, or provide insights for literature review. I list a few for your consideration. reference 1: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10639-021-10791-xreference 2: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11516-021-0001-8 ============================== Please submit your revised manuscript by Apr 07 2022 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, Heng Luo, 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 provide additional details regarding participant consent. In the ethics statement in the Methods and online submission information, please ensure that you have specified (1) whether consent was informed and (2) what type you obtained (for instance, written or verbal, and if verbal, how it was documented and witnessed). If your study included minors, state whether you obtained consent from parents or guardians. If the need for consent was waived by the ethics committee, please include this information. If you are reporting a retrospective study of medical records or archived samples, please ensure that you have discussed whether all data were fully anonymized before you accessed them and/or whether the IRB or ethics committee waived the requirement for informed consent. If patients provided informed written consent to have data from their medical records used in research, please include this information Once you have amended this/these statement(s) in the Methods section of the manuscript, please add the same text to the “Ethics Statement” field of the submission form (via “Edit Submission”). For additional information about PLOS ONE ethical requirements for human subjects research, please refer to http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-human-subjects-research. 3. Please include your full ethics statement in the ‘Methods’ section of your manuscript file. In your statement, please include the full name of the IRB or ethics committee who approved or waived your study, as well as whether or not you obtained informed written or verbal consent. If consent was waived for your study, please include this information in your statement as well. 4. 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. 5. 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. 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: No 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: Q1: The present research used Partial Least Squares structural equation modelling (PLS-SEM) to evaluate how E-learning environment, E-learning adoption, Digital readiness, and Students attitudes towards E-learning, affect Academic achievement. Based on the analysis results, the research emphasized the role of E-learning environment, Digital readiness, Academic engagement, students as well as instructors E-learning attitude as the decisive factors that determine students’ Academic achievement. Q2: A total of 201 undergraduate students from USTF participated in the survey. The methodology relies on Partial Least Squares structural equation modelling (PLS-SEM) and the use of methodology is appropriate. The research presented Cronbach’s alpha, composite reliability, and average variance extracted to explain reliability and validity. Q3: According to the author, the data was submitted to a public database, but he did not provide the URL of the database. In the section Data analysis and results, the study provides a descriptive analysis (including means, medians). Q4: The manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English. Reviewer #2: In the context of COVID-19, this study uses modeling to integrate teacher attitude variables and evaluate the mediating effect of academic engagement on academic achievement. The present research question focuses on how to preserve students’ traditional in-person academic achievements and educational experiences and evaluate the type of e-learning strategies and policies that will provide a more positive effect on students, within the present and post-pandemic context. Overall, the paper is well written and the data are analyzed comprehensively. However, the introduction seems to be a little simple and does not specify what the specific research question is. It would be better if the specific research question could be explained. ****** 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. Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: PONE-D-21-40699-Review.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0268338.r001
Revision 1
27 Mar 2022 Author Response Answers to reviewer comments and improvements. Thank you very much for all the suggestions and recommendations to enhance the present research. All of them will clearly enhance the quality of the present research. Introduction The research background needed to be explained more clearly. What practical problem was the research aimed at solving? (Page 8, Lines 50 - 52). Thank you very much for this very relevant point that helps clarify the nature and purpose of the study. The Introduction section has been intensively modified to clarify the aim of the study, as well as introducing the background needed. In this study, how is E-learning related to traditional learning? This sentence “The present research question focuses on how to preserve students’ traditional in-person academic achievements and educational experiences……” is too abrupt. (Page 8, Lines 59 - 61). Thank you very much, the sentence has been eliminated, as it does not provide value, and replaced with a more profound explanation on the purpose of the present study. Literature review The literature review summarized research on online learning or E-learning and elaborated the contribution of this study. However, the influencing factors mentioned in the study were not explained clearly. Specifically, despite stating the influencing factors, the study did not explain the relationship between factors and academic achievement. In the Research model and hypotheses section, the study mentioned “The model is based on the literature review findings for the following factors……”, but the arguments were not justified enough in the part of Literature review. Thank you very much, this is a critical element that has been addressed with the inclusion of new literature review that relates specifically to support the development of the proposed hypothesis. Research model and hypotheses Analyzing previous literature and making research hypotheses will help to clarify the relationships between variables. Thank you very much, the introduction now includes background on the subject that will provide a better introduction to the literature review that supports the research hypotheses. Furthermore, the literature review has been expanded to include the studies that support the development of the proposed hypothesis. Research hypotheses should be developed first, then a model should be developed to explain the relationship between the variables analyzed. The hypotheses should also be labeled on Figure 1. Thank you very much, the development of the hypotheses, based on the literature review, to finally generate a model, has been described in detail. The hypotheses also have been labeled on Figure 1. Methodology and Data Analysis A descriptive statistical analysis is best presented as a table. An analysis of model fit is missing from this study. Thank you very much. The descriptive statistical analysis has been presented as a table and the analysis of model fit is included. Discussion and implications The discussion section is too weak. The arguments needed to be focused on results and elaborated with more studies/research. Thank you very much for these very relevant aspects to improve the discussion section. The results have been linked to the literature review, which also has been extended. The discussion has been organized in two different sections to improve the structure. Each paragraph adds a connection to the next to build upon the first sentence. Related literature regarding online learning during Covid-19 has been extended in order to compare and contrast the research findings. ============================== Specifically, please consider the following during your revision: 1) Please improve the introduction section with a proper description of the research background that emphasizes the importance of your research topic. Please justify the significance of your study with a brief summary of previous literature and their limitations, as well as the unique contribution of your study. (There are many research studies on online learning during Covid-19 pandemic, what makes your study necessary and unique?) Thank you very much for this very relevant point. The Introduction section has been intensively modified to clarify the aim of the study, as well as introducing the background needed with a summary of previous literature and their limitations. Contributions are made more explicit also before the hypothesis are stated. 2) Consider revising your discussion section. First, please ensure that your discussion are based on the research findings. You can use sub-headings in discussion to make your argument more structured. Second, when citing other research studies in discussion, we try to link our results to previous findings (either in support or contradiction) or use previous literature to explain your own findings... I feel sometimes your reference lacks connection to your own results and sounds like part of general literature review (e.g., the second paragraph of discussion) Third, please consider using the first sentence of each paragraph as the summary of the paragraph content or topic of argument. The remaining sentences in the paragraph simply build upon the first sentence, providing elaboration, literature support or empirical evidence. I found in many occasions that the topic sentence is hided in the middle of paragraph or placed at the end of it. (3) There are many related literature regarding online learning during Covid-19, I believe the results can be used to compare and contrast your own findings, or provide insights for literature review. I list a few for your consideration. reference 1: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10639-021-10791-x reference 2: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11516-021-0001-8 Thank you very much for these very relevant aspects to improve the discussion section. The results have been linked to the literature review, which also has been extended. The discussion has been organized in two different sections to improve the structure. Each paragraph adds a connection to the next to build upon the first sentence. Related literature regarding online learning during Covid-19 has been extended in order to compare and contrast the research findings. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0268338.r002
18 Apr 2022 Decision Letter - Heng Luo, Editor PONE-D-21-40699R1Managing university e-learning environments and academic achievement in the United Arab Emirates: An instructor and student perspective.PLOS ONE Dear Dr. Ibanez, 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. ============================== I appreciate the extensive revision efforts taken by the authors. As a result, the quality of the paper has been significantly increased, and I don't see any major issues regarding the paper content. However, before I can accept this paper, the authors need to further refine the format of the manuscript to meet Plos One requirements. The guidelines and sample paper of Plos One are attached in this e-mail for your reference. Also, The color and style of proposed model in Figure 1 and validated model in Figure 2 are drastically different. I would suggest make them consistent in design and style. ============================== Please submit your revised manuscript by Jun 02 2022 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, Heng Luo, Ph.D. 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: [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. Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: PLOS Affiliations Formatting Guidelines.pdf Attachment Submitted filename: PLOS Manuscript Body Formatting Guidelines.pdf Attachment Submitted filename: Sample Paper (1).pdf https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0268338.r003
Revision 2
26 Apr 2022 Author Response I appreciate the extensive revision efforts taken by the authors. As a result, the quality of the paper has been significantly increased, and I don't see any major issues regarding the paper content. Thank you very much for all the suggestions and recommendations to enhance the present research. All of them will clearly enhance the quality of the present research. However, before I can accept this paper, the authors need to further refine the format of the manuscript to meet Plos One requirements. The guidelines and sample paper of Plos One are attached in this e-mail for your reference. The format of the manuscript has been adapted to meet Plos One requirements, based on the guidelines and sample paper. Also, The color and style of proposed model in Figure 1 and validated model in Figure 2 are drastically different. I would suggest make them consistent in design and style. The color and style of proposed model in Figure 1 and validated model in Figure 2 have been redesigned to present a consistent style. Thank you again for all the support and guidance along the entire process. We look forward to provide value to the journal with the present research. Very kind regards, Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Final rebutal letter.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0268338.r004
28 Apr 2022 Decision Letter - Heng Luo, Editor Managing university e-learning environments and academic achievement in the United Arab Emirates: An instructor and student perspective. PONE-D-21-40699R2 Dear Dr. Ibanez, 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 for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, 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, Heng Luo, Ph.D. Academic Editor PLOS ONE Additional Editor Comments (optional): Reviewers' comments: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0268338.r005
Formally Accepted
4 May 2022 Acceptance Letter - Heng Luo, Editor PONE-D-21-40699R2 Managing university e-learning environments and academic achievement in the United Arab Emirates: An instructor and student perspective. Dear Dr. Fernandez: I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department. 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 plosone@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 Dr. Heng Luo Academic Editor PLOS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0268338.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 .