TARGETing secondary school students’ motivation towards physical education: The role of student-perceived mastery climate teaching strategies

Gwen Weeldenburg; Lars Borghouts; Tim van de Laak; Teun Remmers; Menno Slingerland; Steven Vos

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0274964

Peer Review History

Original SubmissionJanuary 30, 2022
23 Jun 2022 Decision Letter - Francisco Javier Huertas-Delgado, Editor PONE-D-22-02985TARGETing secondary school students’ motivation towards physical education: The role of student-perceived mastery climate teaching strategies.PLOS ONE Dear Dr. Weeldenburg, 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 Aug 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, Francisco Javier Huertas-Delgado, 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. We note that you have included the phrase “data not shown” in your manuscript. Unfortunately, this does not meet our data sharing requirements. PLOS does not permit references to inaccessible data. We require that authors provide all relevant data within the paper, Supporting Information files, or in an acceptable, public repository. Please add a citation to support this phrase or upload the data that corresponds with these findings to a stable repository (such as Figshare or Dryad) and provide and URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers that may be used to access these data. Or, if the data are not a core part of the research being presented in your study, we ask that you remove the phrase that refers to these data. 3. Please include captions for your Supporting Information files at the end of your manuscript, and update any in-text citations to match accordingly. Please see our Supporting Information guidelines for more information: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/supporting-information. 4. 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: Partly ******** 2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: I Don't Know 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: This research may be of interest to the readers of the journal. Authors present an interesting study about the impact of TARGET-based teaching strategies on students’ motivation in a Dutch secondary school PE context. The importance of the topic is indubitable. However, as the authors point out in the section on limitations, the application of the TARGET teaching strategies was determined by the perceptions of students only. Therefore, they have no objective data on the actual application of the teaching strategies. According to the authors, this is the first study in which the TARGET framework was operationalised into a validated questionnaire, to examine how perceived teaching strategies within the TARGET structures independently or interactively impact on secondary school students’ motivation. This study can be an interesting starting point to explore this topic further. In relation to the text, please, see some comments and recommendations below: Introduction: It is a manuscript, not a chapter, so I recommend to reduce and summarize the information of this section. It is important to note the significant number of references incorporated in the introduction, although they are not very recent. The structure of the introduction follows the submission guidelines. The aim of the research is clear and relevant. Methods: The research design seems to fit the purpose of the research. The instruments used for data collection are well described. Results The results section is well structured and very detailed. Discussion and conclusions: It is important to note the significant number of references incorporated in the discussion, although they are not very recent. The conclusions are presented clearly and are justified by the results presented. References: Barely 25% of the references are later than 2016. It is necessary to include more up-to-date bibliography. If it is a topic of interest, it should be evidenced in the knowledge generated in recent years or, at least, in the discrepancies and suggestions of other authors, on the importance of addressing research on this topic. The format of references should be revised to comply with the submission guidelines (https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines). Reviewer #2: The manuscript is extremely interesting and well written. However, it would be necessary some reviews in the manuscript before been publish. There are two topics that need to be clear informed. [page 8, line 165; 171-174] Ethics statement should be written in a specific topic in methods section. And more details about the institution where the project was approved. [page 8, line 167] Why a convenience sample was selected instead of a probabilistic sample? Wasn’t this an additional limitation of the study? Also, it was not clear the eligibility criteria for specialist PE teachers being selected for the study. Would be interesting for readers to have some information about the universe population of specialist PE teachers in Netherlands. ****** 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: Yes: Jessyka Mary Vasconcelos Barbosa ******** [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.0274964.r001
Revision 1
11 Jul 2022 Author Response Dear dr. Francisco Javier Huertas-Delgado, Thank you for the opportunity to revise and resubmit our manuscript. Below, we will address all comments made by you and the reviewers. Editor’s comments: 1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. >> We have changed the file names accordingly and have attempted to meet all PLOS ONE style requirements. This included, for example, changing header font sizes, adapting table headers and changing the in-text references from round to square brackets. 2. We note that you have included the phrase “data not shown” in your manuscript. Unfortunately, this does not meet our data sharing requirements. PLOS does not permit references to inaccessible data. We require that authors provide all relevant data within the paper, Supporting Information files, or in an acceptable, public repository. Please add a citation to support this phrase or upload the data that corresponds with these findings to a stable repository (such as Figshare or Dryad) and provide and URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers that may be used to access these data. Or, if the data are not a core part of the research being presented in your study, we ask that you remove the phrase that refers to these data. >> We have removed the phrase ‘data not shown’. We meant to indicate that the data was only shown in-text, not in a table. 3. Please include captions for your Supporting Information files at the end of your manuscript, and update any in-text citations to match accordingly. Please see our Supporting Information guidelines for more information: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/supporting-information. >> We have changed this accordingly. 4. 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. >> We have thoroughly reformatted all references, including addition of doi’s to all papers. As far as we are aware, there is now no citation of retracted papers. Reviewers' comments: Reviewer #1: Introduction: It is a manuscript, not a chapter, so I recommend to reduce and summarize the information of this section. It is important to note the significant number of references incorporated in the introduction, although they are not very recent. The structure of the introduction follows the submission guidelines. The aim of the research is clear and relevant. >> We have abbreviated this section by removing some of the more ‘textbook’-like information, e.g. elaborate information about SDT-motivational regulations, as well as the practical examples of lessons strategies associated with TARGET structures. We agree that these do not necessarily add to the understanding of our research objectives. Also, we have deleted a number of references that were basically ‘overlapping’, making sure to retain the more recent ones where possible (see later). Methods: The research design seems to fit the purpose of the research. The instruments used for data collection are well described. Results The results section is well structured and very detailed. Discussion and conclusions: It is important to note the significant number of references incorporated in the discussion, although they are not very recent. The conclusions are presented clearly and are justified by the results presented. References: Barely 25% of the references are later than 2016. It is necessary to include more up-to-date bibliography. If it is a topic of interest, it should be evidenced in the knowledge generated in recent years or, at least, in the discrepancies and suggestions of other authors, on the importance of addressing research on this topic.\\ >> We have added a number of more recent references, so that now 49% of all references is post-2016. The format of references should be revised to comply with the submission guidelines (https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines). >> We have changed the format of the references to comply with the journal’s guidelines. Reviewer #2: The manuscript is extremely interesting and well written. However, it would be necessary some reviews in the manuscript before been publish. There are two topics that need to be clear informed. [page 8, line 165; 171-174] Ethics statement should be written in a specific topic in methods section. And more details about the institution where the project was approved. >> We have added more info about the ethical procedures and approval and combined this into one paragraph (183-188). [page 8, line 167] Why a convenience sample was selected instead of a probabilistic sample? Wasn’t this an additional limitation of the study? Also, it was not clear the eligibility criteria for specialist PE teachers being selected for the study. Would be interesting for readers to have some information about the universe population of specialist PE teachers in Netherlands. >> We added text to the limitation to acknowledge this (501-505). Also, we included some information about (specialist) PE teachers in secondary education in the Netherlands (192-195). Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Response to reviewers.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0274964.r002
8 Sep 2022 Decision Letter - Gwo-Jen Hwang, Editor TARGETing secondary school students’ motivation towards physical education: The role of student-perceived mastery climate teaching strategies. PONE-D-22-02985R1 Dear Dr. Weeldenburg, 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, Gwo-Jen Hwang 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: 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: Yes ****** 3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: I Don't Know ****** 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 response of the authors of the work have been satisfactory. The detailed explanations as well as the specification of the new version of the manuscript are appreciated. The submitted work may be of great interest to the readers of the journal. ****** 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: Yes: Javier Rico-Díaz ******** https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0274964.r003
Formally Accepted
13 Sep 2022 Acceptance Letter - Gwo-Jen Hwang, Editor PONE-D-22-02985R1 TARGETing secondary school students’ motivation towards physical education: The role of student-perceived mastery climate teaching strategies. Dear Dr. Weeldenburg: 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. Gwo-Jen Hwang Academic Editor PLOS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0274964.r004

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 .