Secondary teachers’ competencies and attitude: A mediated multigroup model based on usefulness and enjoyment to examine the differences between key dimensions of STEM teaching practice

Fabiola Sanda Chiriacescu; Bogdan Chiriacescu; Alina Elena Grecu; Cristina Miron; Ion Ovidiu Panisoara; Iuliana Mihaela Lazar

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0279986

Peer Review History

Original SubmissionApril 29, 2021
20 Jul 2021 Decision Letter - Manuel Santos-Trigo, Editor PONE-D-21-14168 Secondary teachers' competencies and attitude: A moderated mediated model based on usefulness, enjoyment and instructional strategy style PLOS ONE Dear Dr. Lazar, 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 Sep 03 2021 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: http://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, Manuel Santos-Trigo, PhD Academic Editor PLOS ONE Additional Editor Comments: There are three related parts that authors need to revise in order to clarify the aim of the study, the review and analysis of related studies to support coherently the research, and the pertinence of using a Likert scale questionnaire to assess participants' competences, usefulness, enjoyment, attitude regarding their teaching practices that involve IBL & STEM. 1. There is a conceptual confusion in this study when authors intend to contrast an instructional approach (IBL) that fosters students’ inquisitive method to understand concepts and to solve problems with a STEM perspective to integrate four domains (Science, Technology, Engineering, Mathematics) to direct and support students’ education. That is, an IBL approach can be used to frame teaching and learning scenarios that aim to understand concepts and to solve problems that demand the use of knowledge and strategies from the four disciplines. They are not separate domains or areas to contrast, but one (IBL) is an instructional approach based on questions that learner pose and pursue to develop disciplinary knowledge and strategies to solve problems. That is, IBL often is used to frame learning scenarios that promote students' learning and integration STEM disciplines 2. In the literature review, it is important to discuss the extent to which both IBL teaching approaches have been implemented in learning the four disciplines (Science, Technology, Engineering, and mathematics) and also studies that address the integration of these four disciplines as an educational model in terms of the main parameters or variables that are investigated in this study. 3. It is clear that the use of a Likert scale questionnaire offers general information regarding participants' consistent teaching behaviors that reflect their actual teaching competencies or even attitude or enjoyment associated with their teaching practices. In my view, the information provided by the participants' response to the questionnaire needs to be supported and constructed via, for example, the use interviews in which a reduced sample of participants could elaborate on their questionnaire answer. That is, a research blending design that incorporates both quantitative (the questionnaire) and a qualitative approach is important to enhance the trustwordiness of the study. 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 [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: No Reviewer #2: Yes ******** 2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: No 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: 1. What are the novelty of this study? 2. Literature review need more to elaborate relationship between the variables measures 3. Methodology should be clear, - Sample involved in pilot study and actual study - sampling method - population number 4. find citation for result RMSEA more than 0.08? refer competences, enjoyment and attitude? 5. Show the result of AVE and composite reliability for each variables. 6. X2/df more than 0.5, refer to enjoyment and attitude, find citation to accept this value? 7. Why this study use Amos to analyze the data? all assumption of AMOS should be achieved. 8. Based on descriptive statistics values shows data was not normal distribution, refer skewness and kurtosis values, why this study continue using Amos? 9. Correlation between variable too high (more than 0.85). Meaning data has problem with multicollinearity issues. 10. Finding elaboration use word of moderator. but in literature mediator. its was difference terms and function. 11. Discussion not relate to the problem statement 12. Overall, this manuscript should be re-analysis and re-write. Please refer all the assumption using Amos software and do the step by step correctly. Reviewer #2: This study is coherent and rigorous, both in terms of theoretical underpinning and methodology. It adequately sets out the research objectives and study hypothesis. The data analysis processes are robust and in line with the research objectives. Results are well described and respond to the research questions. Conclusions are appropriate. Authors should review the bibliography, as they do not use the "Vancouver" style, as indicated in the journal's guidelines. ****** 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.0279986.r001
Revision 1
2 Dec 2021 Author Response Dear Additional Editor and reviewers, Sincerest thanks to Editor and reviewers for their valuable time and useful contribution. The authors hope that a revised version of the manuscript will still be considered by PLoS ONE journal. As suggested by the reviewers, the corrections have been made. The authors corrected the manuscript in the change mode ('track changes'). The corrected version of the article indicates where the changes were made following the reviewer suggestions. The authors present an improved version of the manuscript. There are minor differences between 'track changes' and the final version due to the paper format and English language corrections. We incorporated all reviewer’s suggestions, and we are grateful to reviewers for careful reading of the paper and helpful suggestions and comments to improve our work. We provide our responses point by point and modify the manuscript according to the accurate and intuitive reviewers’ comments and additional Editor comments. Additional Editor Comments: There are three related parts that authors need to revise in order to clarify the aim of the study, the review and analysis of related studies to support coherently the research, and the pertinence of using a Likert scale questionnaire to assess participants' competences, usefulness, enjoyment, attitude regarding their teaching practices that involve IBL & STEM. 1. There is a conceptual confusion in this study when authors intend to contrast an instructional approach (IBL) that fosters students’ inquisitive method to understand concepts and to solve problems with a STEM perspective to integrate four domains (Science, Technology, Engineering, Mathematics) to direct and support students’ education. That is, an IBL approach can be used to frame teaching and learning scenarios that aim to understand concepts and to solve problems that demand the use of knowledge and strategies from the four disciplines. They are not separate domains or areas to contrast, but one (IBL) is an instructional approach based on questions that learner pose and pursue to develop disciplinary knowledge and strategies to solve problems. That is, IBL often is used to frame learning scenarios that promote students' learning and integration STEM disciplines. R: Based on supplementary searching we reorganised and extended the theoretical part of this study to assume adequate contribution to the literature (See Abstract line 17-39, Introduction line 46-58, manuscript version with ”track changes”). 2. In the literature review, it is important to discuss the extent to which both IBL teaching approaches have been implemented in learning the four disciplines (Science, Technology, Engineering, and mathematics) and also studies that address the integration of these four disciplines as an educational model in terms of the main parameters or variables that are investigated in this study. R: The contribution of this study comes from the theoretical research model tested for two type pf STEM teaching practices: Integration of STEM content (INT) and Inquiry-based learning (IBL) [1]. Accordingly with an extensive literature review, we re-write all manuscript. 3. It is clear that the use of a Likert scale questionnaire offers general information regarding participants' consistent teaching behaviors that reflect their actual teaching competencies or even attitude or enjoyment associated with their teaching practices. In my view, the information provided by the participants' response to the questionnaire needs to be supported and constructed via, for example, the use interviews in which a reduced sample of participants could elaborate on their questionnaire answer. That is, a research blending design that incorporates both quantitative (the questionnaire) and a qualitative approach is important to enhance the trustwordiness of the study. R: The results of an interview were described in the Discussion part. ...... Dear Reviewer 1, Sincerest thanks for your valuable time and useful contribution. We incorporated all your suggestions, and we are grateful to you for careful reading of the paper and helpful suggestions and comments to improve our work. We provide our responses point by point and modify the manuscript according to the accurate and intuitive comments. 1. What are the novelty of this study? R: The novelty of the study was completed as the result of supplemental searching. It involves a systematic search for studies considered relevant to the topic of research. The contribution of this study comes from the theoretical research model tested for two type pf STEM teaching practices: Integration of STEM content (INT) and Inquiry-based learning (IBL) [1]. 2. Literature review need more to elaborate relationship between the variables measures R: Based on supplementary searching we reorganised and extended the theoretical part of this study to assume adequate contribution to the literature (See Abstract line 17-39, Introduction line 46-58, manuscript version with ”track changes”). 3. Methodology should be clear - Sample involved in pilot study and actual study - sampling method - population number find citation for result RMSEA more than 0.08? refer competences, enjoyment and attitude? Show the result of AVE and composite reliability for each variables. X2/df more than 0.5, refer to enjoyment and attitude, find citation to accept this value? Why this study use Amos to analyze the data? all assumption of AMOS should be achieved. Based on descriptive statistics values shows data was not normal distribution, refer skewness and kurtosis values, why this study continue using Amos? Correlation between variable too high (more than 0.85). Meaning data has problem with multicollinearity issues. Finding elaboration use word of moderator. but in literature mediator. its was difference terms and function. R: The authors re-analysis and re-write the methodology part (See Abstract line 322-475, manuscript version with ”track changes”). Discussion not relate to the problem statement R: The authors reviewed the discussion (See Discussion line 596-655, manuscript version with ”track changes”) Overall, this manuscript should be re-analysis and re-write. Please refer all the assumption using Amos software and do the step by step correctly. R: The authors used the SmartPLS software instead of Amos ..... Dear Reviewer 2, Sincerest thanks for your valuable time and useful contribution. We incorporated all your suggestions, and we are grateful to you for careful reading of the paper and helpful suggestions and comments to improve our work. We provide our responses point by point and modify the manuscript according to the accurate and intuitive comments. Reviewer #2: This study is coherent and rigorous, both in terms of theoretical underpinning and methodology. It adequately sets out the research objectives and study hypothesis. The data analysis processes are robust and in line with the research objectives. Results are well described and respond to the research questions. Conclusions are appropriate. Authors should review the bibliography, as they do not use the "Vancouver" style, as indicated in the journal's guidelines. R: The authors agree that were omissions in the bibliography. Consequently, the bibliography was improved. We hope you find this revision appropriate for research topic. Once more, thank you for your exhaustive review. Sincerely, Dr. Iulia Lazar, corresponding author On behalf of all authors Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Response to Reviewer 2.pdf https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0279986.r002
17 Jan 2022 Decision Letter - Haoran Xie, Editor PONE-D-21-14168R1Secondary teachers' competencies and attitude: A mediated multigroup model based on usefulness and enjoyment to examine the differences between key dimensions of STEM teaching practicePLOS ONE Dear Dr. Lazar, 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 Mar 03 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, Haoran Xie Academic Editor PLOS ONE Additional Editor Comments: Reviewer #1: 1. Three hundred teachers (i.e., mathematics, physics, chemistry, biology, computing, ICT, 330 Technologies) who used IBL and INT teaching practices have been interviewed. How to make sure 300 teachers are interviewed? How to be conducted? 2. How to get the number of 300 sample from the population? What sampling method used? 3. Based on demographic, the specialization of teachers are not balances. How can this study concluded that all the teachers can be generalized to the population number based on specialization? 4. Show the results of effect size 5. Discussion should be referred to the finding. Discuss the significant indirect effects for total sample (a), IBL (b) and INT (c) teaching practices. Discuss with pro and contra. Add citations to support the statement. 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. [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: Partly ****** 3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: No ****** 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: 1. Three hundred teachers (i.e., mathematics, physics, chemistry, biology, computing, ICT, 330 Technologies) who used IBL and INT teaching practices have been interviewed. How to make sure 300 teachers are interviewed? How to be conducted? 2. How to get the number of 300 sample from the population? What sampling method used? 3. Based on demographic, the specialization of teachers are not balances. How can this study concluded that all the teachers can be generalized to the population number based on specialization? 4. Show the results of effect size 5. Discussion should be referred to the finding. Discuss the significant indirect effects for total sample (a), IBL (b) and INT (c) teaching practices. Discuss with pro and contra. Add citations to support the statement. ****** 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.0279986.r003
Revision 2
17 Feb 2022 Author Response Dear Reviewer, Sincerest thanks for your valuable time and valuable contribution. We incorporated all your suggestions, and we are grateful to you for your careful reading of the paper and helpful advice and comments to improve our work. We provide our responses point by point and modify the manuscript according to accurate and intuitive comments. Due to significant changes in some parts of the manuscript, some errors cannot be corrected in the change mode (‘track changes’). In addition, we mention that the lines indicated in the responses to the reviewer correspond to the corrected final version without track changes. However, some differences can be observed between the “clean” and ~track changes~form. All authors agree with the content of the manuscript after the second revision. Also, I confirm that co-authors all had an active part in the final manuscript. As the corresponding author, I take responsibility for informing co-authors on time of editorial decisions, received reviews, changes made in response to the editorial review, and the content of revisions. In addition, we mention that the lines indicated in the responses to the reviewer correspond to the corrected final version without track changes. Reviewer #1: 1. Three hundred teachers (i.e., mathematics, physics, chemistry, biology, computing, ICT, 330 Technologies) who used IBL and INT teaching practices have been interviewed. How to make sure 300 teachers are interviewed? How to be conducted? 2. How to get the number of 300 sample from the population? What sampling method used? R to Question 1 and Question 2: The participants and data collection procedure section has been rewritten (see Lines 325-369). 3. Based on demographic, the specialization of teachers are not balances. How can this study concluded that all the teachers can be generalized to the population number based on specialization? R: Based on supplementary searching, we reorganized and extended the Limitations and suggestions for future research section (see Lines 588-602). 4. Show the results of effect size R: The effect size results were included (see Lines 489-500). 5. Discussion should be referred to the finding. Discuss the significant indirect effects for total sample (a), IBL (b) and INT (c) teaching practices. Discuss with pro and contra. Add citations to support the statement. R: We extended the discussion part of this study (see Lines 547-555) 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. R: Yes, we agree with the option to publish the peer review history of their article. Reviewers’ comments: 3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: No R: Measurement invariance composite (MICOM) results based on three steps (configural invariance, compositional invariance, & equality of composite mean values and variances) revealed that full measurement invariance has been established. This analysis was only briefly detailed because of the complexity and the already considerable size of the article. However, supplementary material was presented. (see Lines 438-446). Sincerely, Dr. Iulia Lazar, corresponding author On behalf of all authors Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Response to Reviewer 1_revision 2.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0279986.r004
27 Apr 2022 Decision Letter - Haoran Xie, Editor PONE-D-21-14168R2Secondary teachers' competencies and attitude: A mediated multigroup model based on usefulness and enjoyment to examine the differences between key dimensions of STEM teaching practicePLOS ONE Dear Dr. Lazar, 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 Jun 11 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, Haoran Xie Academic Editor PLOS ONE [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: 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: No ****** 3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: No ****** 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: No ****** 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: 1. Method : - Elaborate research design - Why using snowball, it was for qualitative research - Sub-topic on method should be include : Research design, participant, measurement, data analysis. - EFA test result should be elaborate in part of method - EFA result should be elaborate KMO and berlette, Communalities, eigenvalue, % cumulative of variance, rotation matrics. Make sure all of this ellaborate. 2. Results - Elaborate based hypothesis listed - Elaborate the assumption using SEM by smartPLS: normality test, multicollinearity, discriminant etc 3. Discussion - Discuss the finding based hypothesis listed - Use idea, justification and reason to discuss research finding - elaborate the contribution of this study ****** 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.0279986.r005
Revision 3
18 Jun 2022 Author Response Dear Editor, Dear Reviewer, Sincerest thanks for your valuable time and valuable contribution. We incorporated all your suggestions, and we are grateful to you for your careful reading of the paper and helpful advice and comments to improve our work. We provide our responses point by point and modify the manuscript according to accurate and intuitive comments. Due to significant changes in some parts of the manuscript, some errors cannot be corrected in the change mode (‘track changes’). In addition, we mention that the lines indicated in the responses to the reviewer correspond to the corrected final version without track changes. However, some differences can be observed between the “clean” and ~track changes~ forms. All authors agree with the content of the manuscript after the second revision. Also, I confirm that co-authors all had an active part in the final manuscript. As the corresponding author, I take responsibility for informing co-authors on time of editorial decisions, received reviews, changes made in response to the editorial review, and the content of revisions. In addition, we mention that the lines indicated in the responses to the reviewer correspond to the corrected final version without track changes. Reviewer #1: 1. Method : - Elaborate research design - Why using snowball, it was for qualitative research - Sub-topic on method should be include : o Research design, o Participant, o Measurement, o Data analysis, o EFA test result should be elaborate in part of method (KMO and berlette, Communalities, eigenvalue, % cumulative of variance, rotation matrics) - EFA result should be elaborate. Make sure all of this ellaborate. R to Question 1 and Question 2: The method section has been partially rewritten (see the manuscript version with track changes). 3. Results - Elaborate based hypothesis listed - Elaborate the assumption using SEM by smartPLS: normality test, multicollinearity, discriminant etc R: We reorganized and extended the result section (see the manuscript version with track changes). 4. Discussion - Discuss the finding based hypothesis listed - Use idea, justification and reason to discuss research finding - elaborate the contribution of this study. R: We reorganized and extended the discussion section (see the manuscript version with track changes). We would also like to express our gratitude for all your consistent suggestions, in the absence of which we wouldn’t have succeeded in rigorously partially rewriting the manuscript. Sincerely, Dr. Iulia Lazar, corresponding author On behalf of all authors Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Response to Reviewer 1_revision 3.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0279986.r006
5 Aug 2022 Decision Letter - Haoran Xie, Editor PONE-D-21-14168R3Secondary teachers' competencies and attitude: A mediated multigroup model based on usefulness and enjoyment to examine the differences between key dimensions of STEM teaching practicePLOS ONE Dear Dr. Lazar, 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. Based on the review results, a Minor Revision has been suggested in the paper before making any final decision. Please revise the manuscript based on reviewers' comments accordingly. Please submit your revised manuscript by Sep 19 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, Haoran Xie 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: Partly ****** 3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: No ****** 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: No ****** 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: 1. Find references for communalities value less than 0.2 are accepted 2. Find citations for percentages of total variance less than 60% are accepted. 3. Based on experience to use EFA, this study's result was not good. Some of the items should be removed. but the author still proceeds with the item with a communalities value less than 0.4 or 0.5. 4. Results pilot test for CFA are not clear. Need to show the value of factor loading, correlation, AVE, Composite reliability, and Cronbach Alpha, Not only of model fit value. 5. Actual study result need to be re-analysis after checking a pilot test result. ****** 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.0279986.r007
Revision 4
2 Sep 2022 Author Response Dear Reviewer, All authors agree with the content of the manuscript after the fourth revision. Also, I confirm that co-authors all had an active part in the final manuscript. As the corresponding author, I take responsibility for informing co-authors on the time of editorial decisions, received reviews, changes made in response to the editorial review, and the content of revisions. In addition, we mention that the lines indicated in the responses to the reviewer correspond to the corrected final version without track changes. Reviewer #1: 1. Find references for communalities value less than 0.2 are accepted R to Suggestion 1: The Data analysis subsection has been partially rewritten after statistical corrections. Now, all communalities are larger than 0.4. See in the document “Revised 4 Manuscript”- Table 2. Factor Loadings from Exploratory Factor Analysis for total sample (N=600) 2. Find citations for percentages of total variance less than 60% are accepted. R to Suggestion 2: Now, the percentages of total variance are higher than 60%. See in the document “Revised 4 Manuscript” – lines 474-482 3. Based on experience to use EFA, this study's result was not good. Some of the items should be removed. but the author still proceeds with the item with a communalities value less than 0.4 or 0.5. R to Suggestion 3: The EFA analyses were revised. See in the document “Revised 4 Manuscript”– lines 474-487 4. Results pilot test for CFA are not clear. Need to show the value of factor loading, correlation, AVE, Composite reliability, and Cronbach Alpha, Not only of model fit value. R to Suggestion 4: The CFA analyses were revised. See in the document “Revised 4 Manuscript”– lines 544-565 5. Actual study results need to be re-analysis after checking a pilot test result. R to Suggestion 5: Actual study results were re-analysis after checking a pilot test result. We would also like to express our gratitude for all your consistent suggestions, in the absence of which we wouldn’t have succeeded in rigorously partially rewriting the manuscript. Sincerely, Dr. Iulia Lazar, corresponding author On behalf of all authors Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Response to Reviewer 1_revision 4.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0279986.r008
8 Nov 2022 Decision Letter - Heng Luo, Editor PONE-D-21-14168R4Secondary teachers' competencies and attitude: A mediated multigroup model based on usefulness and enjoyment to examine the differences between key dimensions of STEM teaching practicePLOS ONE Dear Dr. Lazar, 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 have seen that you have made substantial revisions to the manuscript based on the previous reviewer comments. As a result, the quality of manuscript has improved, and Reviewer 1 is now very satisfied with your manuscript. However, Reviewer 4 has raised additional issues. Would you please revise your manuscript once again to address the new comments? Almost there! Please submit your revised manuscript by Dec 23 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: 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 #3: (No Response) Reviewer #4: (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 Reviewer #3: Yes Reviewer #4: Yes ****** 3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #3: Yes Reviewer #4: 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 #3: Yes Reviewer #4: 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 #3: Yes Reviewer #4: 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: Congratulation! Good article with great analysis reports and new knowledge. This manuscript has a good standard to publish. But need to revise the all the figures. need clearer. Reviewer #3: (No Response) Reviewer #4: (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: No Reviewer #3: No Reviewer #4: 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: Reviewer comments.docx Attachment Submitted filename: PONE-D-21-14168_R4.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0279986.r009
Revision 5
4 Dec 2022 Author Response Dear Reviewers, All authors agree with the content of the manuscript after the fifth revision. Also, I confirm that co-authors all had an active part in the final manuscript. As the corresponding author, I take responsibility for informing co-authors on the time of editorial decisions, received reviews, changes made in response to the editorial review, and the content of revisions. In addition, we mention that the lines indicated in the responses to the reviewer correspond to the corrected final version without track changes. Reviewer 1: General remarks: The overall manuscript is very focused. This research explores the mediating role of perceived usefulness and enjoyment of STEM teaching practice between secondary teachers' competencies and attitudes through structural equation model. Meanwhile, the study examines whether the relationship between model structure differs for Inquiry-based learning (IBL) and STEM content integration (INT), which is an interesting and innovative finding. Answer: The manuscript has been rewritten (see manuscript with Track changes) so that sentences no longer contain redundant words, arguments are logical and coherently presented. Specific remarks: 1. p. abstracts. The last sentence contains a statement: “Understanding the mediating role of perceived usefulness and enjoyment for each STEM practice would help teachers succesfully implement STEM education.” It needs to be explained in detail in your manuscript later on. Answer: The statement: “Understanding the mediating role of perceived usefulness and enjoyment for each STEM practice would help teachers implement STEM education (see p.3 line 79-85 and p.36, line 710-716) 2. p.1 lines 44-45. References to STEAM definitions are best marked with the page number of the original text. Answer: References to STEAM definitions have been marked with the page numbers of the original texts (see p. 1 line 44 and p.5 line 90) 3. p.4 line 68. IBL emphasizes critical thinking and inquiry-based learning. However, in IBL mode, why is it important to explore the factors affecting learners' attitudes? This logic should be further elaborated. Additional, if the term IBL appears for the first time, it is recommended to explain. Answer: Details on the importance of exploring the factors affecting students' attitudes towards IBL (see p.4 line 68-75) Answer: References to the IBL definition have been marked with the page numbers of the original texts (see p. 4 line 79) 5. p.5 lines 75-82, the first sentence does not have a strong logical connection with the content elaborated later. It is suggested to further demonstrate the reasons why IBL or INT method in STEM is difficult to implement. Answer: The reasons why IBL or INT method in STEM is difficult to implement was demonstrated (see p. 5 line 95-101) 6. p.10, the concept logic of teacher's ability and student's ability is not clear enough in the discussion of the three elements of ability, especially in lines 115-117. It is suggested to reorganize the sentences to make the logic more coherent. Answer: The sentences were reorganized to make the logic more coherent (see p. 5 line 142-153) 7. p.13, lines 145-146, "Moreover, usefulness mediates the relationship between ease of use and attitude" suggest adding literature citation support. Answer: The literature citation support was add (see p. 8 line 180) 8. p.25, lines 235-241, the logic of the argument that attitude depends on cognitive ability needs to be reorganized. What new cognitive needs does STEM teaching practice put forward for teachers' cognitive ability, which is different from other teaching environments, and there is no logical connection between the first and second Answer: The logic of the argument that attitude depends on cognitive ability needs was reorganized (see p. 12 line 1269-278) 9. p.27, line 253, the summary of the hypothesis can be more concise. There are similar contents in the introduction and the previous literature review, which can be carefully considered. Answer: The subchapter “The current study. Hypothesis summary” was revised 10. The WST model explains the relationship between attitude and ability, but whether the other two mediating variables can be deeply explained by different model theories, for example, whether perceived usefulness and attitude can be explained by Technology Acceptance Model (TAM), and whether enjoyment can be explained by Flow Theory. Answer: The reviewed manuscript synthesized WST, TAM, and FLT models to describe the relationships between secondary teachers' competencies and attitudes 11. p.54, line 473, there is no Table 2A. Please check the chart and the passage carefully. Answer - Resolved 12. Table 3b, line 543, place parameters in italics (p). Also check the remainder of your manuscript for this. Answer- Resolved 13. In the end, the Path diagram can be refined, for example by adding a topic item. Answer-resolved We would also like to express our gratitude for all your consistent suggestions, in the absence of which we wouldn’t have succeeded in rigorously partially rewriting the manuscript. Sincerely, Dr. Iulia Lazar, corresponding author On behalf of all authors https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0279986.r010
19 Dec 2022 Decision Letter - Heng Luo, Editor Secondary teachers' competencies and attitude: A mediated multigroup model based on usefulness and enjoyment to examine the differences between key dimensions of STEM teaching practice PONE-D-21-14168R5 Dear Dr. Lazar, 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.0279986.r011
Formally Accepted
27 Dec 2022 Acceptance Letter - Heng Luo, Editor PONE-D-21-14168R5 Secondary teachers' competencies and attitude: A mediated multigroup model based on usefulness and enjoyment to examine the differences between key dimensions of STEM teaching practice Dear Dr. Lazar: 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.0279986.r012

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 .