The study strategies of small liberal arts college students before and after COVID-19

Hailey L. Rinella; Adam L. Putnam

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0278666

Peer Review History

Original SubmissionJuly 19, 2022
14 Sep 2022 Decision Letter - Gwo-Jen Hwang, Editor PONE-D-22-20373The study strategies of small liberal arts college students before and after COVID-19PLOS ONE Dear Dr. Putnam, 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 Oct 29 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, Gwo-Jen Hwang 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 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. 3. 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: 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: In this paper, the authors examined the self-reported study behaviours, knowledge about multitasking, and study strategies used before and during COVID of 484 introductory psychology students at a small liberal arts college in the Southeastern US recruited over four semesters between 2019 and 2021. The abstract ought to include the sample size and some of its characteristics. Where there is statistical significance, inferential statistics (Chi-square… and effect size) should be reported. If “more or less likely” refer to odds ratios, then odd ratios should also be reported. The authors are inconsistent in that these statistics are reported in one part but withheld in other parts of the analysis. The statement in the first paragraph of the Discussion, “because outreach efforts by cognitive psychologists..” is ambiguous and needs further explanation. I suggest that the entire sample from an introductory psychology class only is also a limitation It would have been helpful to suggest a few reasons that may explain why students insist on using ineffective study strategies. While I appreciate that these variables were not measured, some speculation as to their role may be helpful. For example, would there be a difference in study strategies between those who take five courses and those who take fewer than three courses, those who work full-time and those who work part-time or do not work at all, or those with family responsibility and those without such obligation? Overall, I found the manuscript informative, useful, and easy to read and follow. I am planning to share it with my students once published. Thank you for giving me this opportunity to review this work. Reviewer #2: Some modification to the abstract need to be done. adding short introduction that include the focus of the current study. what the main objects of the study. a brief description of the methods, for example participants and questionnaires ****** 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: Yes: Dr. Ali M. AL-Asadi 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.0278666.r001
Revision 1
28 Sep 2022 Author Response Adam L. Putnam Assistant Professor Department of Psychology Furman University Greenville SC 29613 adam.putnam@furman.edu 864.294.3213 September 28, 2022 Dear Gwo-Jen Hwang, Thank you for forwarding the reviews of our manuscript, The study strategies of small liberal arts college students before and after COVID-19. We’ve included the reviewer responses below, along with our responses to their suggestions in bold. Reviewer #1 In this paper, the authors examined the self-reported study behaviours, knowledge about multitasking, and study strategies used before and during COVID of 484 introductory psychology students at a small liberal arts college in the Southeastern US recruited over four semesters between 2019 and 2021. The abstract ought to include the sample size and some of its characteristics. We now report the sample size and its main composition (introductory psychology students) in the abstract. See also the comments from Reviewer #2 and our response Where there is statistical significance, inferential statistics (Chi-square… and effect size) should be reported. If “more or less likely” refer to odds ratios, then odd ratios should also be reported. The authors are inconsistent in that these statistics are reported in one part but withheld in other parts of the analysis. Every time we report a comparison between our work and prior work the results of the statistical tests are now reported in Table 1. Although we often use the language “our students were more/less likely to XYZ than prior samples” we did not conduct a logistic regression analysis for those comparisons, so there is no odds ratio to report. In the one results section where we do report odds ratios (Does multitasking behavior predict whether students cram or space their studying?) we conducted a logistic regression, thus reporting the odds ratio is appropriate. For clarification, we also added the statistical results reported in Table 4. The statement in the first paragraph of the Discussion, “because outreach efforts by cognitive psychologists..” is ambiguous and needs further explanation. We reiterate the point made in the introduction by re-citing relevant works about effective studying that are geared towards the general public and students. I suggest that the entire sample from an introductory psychology class only is also a limitation We added the fact that our sample came from introductory psychology classes as an additional limitation. It would have been helpful to suggest a few reasons that may explain why students insist on using ineffective study strategies. While I appreciate that these variables were not measured, some speculation as to their role may be helpful. For example, would there be a difference in study strategies between those who take five courses and those who take fewer than three courses, those who work full-time and those who work part-time or do not work at all, or those with family responsibility and those without such obligation? In the introduction to the manuscript, we review the literature that has examined why students use ineffective study strategies. As we note, the main hypothesis in the field is that ineffective strategies – cramming, rereading, and highlighting – typically lead to increased feelings of fluency which lead students to think they have mastered the material. In contrast, effective strategies – spacing and testing -- are desirable difficulties in that they are objectively more challenging to complete initially, yet led to long term durable learning. This disconnect between a student’s experience of a technique and its overall effectiveness are likely the main reason students do not use more effective strategies. Reviewer 1 also raises the interesting question of how different types of students might approach studying in different ways. Our institution is a small liberal arts college, and our student body is over 95% residential, full-time students of traditional college age. In short, we are not well equipped to speculate about that specific suggestion. However, we now note in the discussion that such research questions are a prime area for future research. Overall, I found the manuscript informative, useful, and easy to read and follow. I am planning to share it with my students once published. Thank you for giving me this opportunity to review this work. Thank you for taking the time to review our manuscript – we are glad it will be useful for you! Reviewer #2 Some modification to the abstract need to be done. adding short introduction that include the focus of the current study. what the main objects of the study. a brief description of the methods, for example participants and questionnaires We revised the abstract to more clearly state the focus of the current study, the main objectives of the study, and now include a brief description of the method (more information about the participants and the survey instrument). We refrained from citing the exact survey used in our study to follow the PLOS One submission guidelines from including citations in abstracts. In addition to the requested changes made above, we also made several small stylistic changes (or corrected typos) that we will not bother to report here. We hope this revised version of our manuscript meets the publication criteria for PLOS One. Adam L. Putnam, PhD Assistant Professor of Psychology Furman University https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0278666.r002
22 Nov 2022 Decision Letter - Simone Battaglia, Editor The study strategies of small liberal arts college students before and after COVID-19 PONE-D-22-20373R1 Dear Dr. Putnam, 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, Simone Battaglia Guest 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 Reviewer #2: 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 Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available? The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English? PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 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: This area of research needs much more attention than it has been given. Thank you for responding to and incorporating my comments into your manuscript. Reviewer #2: (No Response) ****** 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: Dr. Ali M. AL-Asadi Reviewer #2: No ******** https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0278666.r003
Formally Accepted
29 Nov 2022 Acceptance Letter - Simone Battaglia, Editor PONE-D-22-20373R1 The study strategies of small liberal arts college students before and after COVID-19 Dear Dr. Putnam: 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. Simone Battaglia Guest Editor PLOS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0278666.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 .