PONE-D-22-30289Sustainability of Translator Training in Higher EducationPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Zhu,

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 Feb 26 2023 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,

Grant Rich, 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. In your Data Availability statement, you have not specified where the minimal data set underlying the results described in your manuscript can be found. PLOS defines a study's minimal data set as the underlying data used to reach the conclusions drawn in the manuscript and any additional data required to replicate the reported study findings in their entirety. All PLOS journals require that the minimal data set be made fully available. For more information about our data policy, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability.

Upon re-submitting your revised manuscript, please upload your study’s minimal underlying data set as either Supporting Information files or to a stable, public repository and include the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers within your revised cover letter. For a list of acceptable repositories, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-recommended-repositories. Any potentially identifying patient information must be fully anonymized.

Important: If there are ethical or legal restrictions to sharing your data publicly, please explain these restrictions in detail. Please see our guidelines for more information on what we consider unacceptable restrictions to publicly sharing data: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-unacceptable-data-access-restrictions. Note that it is not acceptable for the authors to be the sole named individuals responsible for ensuring data access.

We will update your Data Availability statement to reflect the information you provide in your cover letter.

3. We note that Figure 2 includes an image of a participant in the study.

As per the PLOS ONE policy (http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-human-subjects-research) on papers that include identifying, or potentially identifying, information, the individual(s) or parent(s)/guardian(s) must be informed of the terms of the PLOS open-access (CC-BY) license and provide specific permission for publication of these details under the terms of this license. Please download the Consent Form for Publication in a PLOS Journal (http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=8ce6/plos-consent-form-english.pdf). The signed consent form should not be submitted with the manuscript, but should be securely filed in the individual's case notes. Please amend the methods section and ethics statement of the manuscript to explicitly state that the patient/participant has provided consent for publication: “The individual in this manuscript has given written informed consent (as outlined in PLOS consent form) to publish these case details”.

If you are unable to obtain consent from the subject of the photograph, you will need to remove the figure and any other textual identifying information or case descriptions for this individual.

Additional Editor Comments:

Your submission is recommended for major revision, then resubmit.

I advise carefully editing the article for English language writing and fluency.

Also be sure to define transcreation in the first page or two of the article; this word is very unusual in English.

Please check you calculations and use of validity factor analysis and Chronbach's alpha with a statistician to confirm it is appropriate and correct; there should be more explanation about what statistical tests were used in figures 22 and 23 and you think they are the appropriate tests and what the reasons were to conduct them

I paste the two reviewers’ comments below

REVIEWER ONE SAYS “Major revision” needed and says

“Well, with all respect, this manuscript does not read with a flow, the sequence of ideas and themes is scattered/disrupted, the English language seems in cohesive, and development and rational of arguments is not well defined.

For more detailed review, please see Attached File for my extended comments” [ The detailed review is

This is good effort on the part of the authors and seems to be timely as globalization and digitalization are taking place rapidly.

However, the Abstract and Introduction sections are not easy to read.

Not flowing structure and content. Authors dive into the subjects w/o adequate definition of terms or gradual building the ground stage

Opening paragraph is too technical for the general readers

Should start like : The UN has developed 17 Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) due to the need of … and the new situation…. (before mentioning target 4.4 or such..)

Again, the opening sentence/paragraph of the Abstract is way too long and complex. Those of us who are not familiar with translators and transcreation, these themes need to be introduced and clarified.

38. To achieve the sustainable development goal in education set by the United Nations for

39. 40 2030, one of whose targets is to substantially increase the number of youth and adults possessing

40. 41 relevant skills, including technical and vocational skills, for employment, decent jobs and entrepre-

41. 42 neurship, students need to be equipped with the core competences identified for the field they spe-

42. 43 cialize in. For student translators, transcreation is a core competence they are expected to acquire.

My Suggestion:

The United Nations has set a Sustainable Development Goal in education to be met hopefully by 2030 (SDG). One of the target areas is to increase, in a substantial way, the number of youth and adults possessing relevant trainings and proficiencies, including technical and vocational skills for employment, affordable jobs, and decent entrepreneurships. Enrolled students need to be equipped with core competencies suitable for the fields in which they are specializing. Translation is one of these fields of specialty. Thus, for student translators, “transcreation” is a core competency they are expected to acquire and practice.

For example, I had to look up the word transcreation online to exactly understand what the authors mean by it and what are they talking about!?! A brief definition of terminologies is essential to any scholarly document before engaging in any detailed discussion.

This is what I found from Google:

Transcreation is a fusion of the words “translation” and “creation.”

It describes copywriting content in a source text that needs to be made coherent, relevant, etc. in a new language. Sometimes transcreation is also called “creative translation.” Namely, because the content isn't translated word for word.

The Conclusion has more flow and clear insight than the opening & the introduction. I suggest the authors include some of that clear description in this paper early on so the educated reader can have an idea of the purpose and direction of this manuscript.

481. 481 In conclusion, the limitations of a one-shot case study are obvious with no random

482. 482 sampling nor a control group. The focus is not to generalize the findings to the whole

483. 483 population but rather, to deepen our understanding of the particular case involved and

484. 484 come up with a solution to the challenges posed by AI and machine translation, which

485. 485 greatly threaten the sustainability of not merely university programs in translation but the

486. 486 translation industry as a whole. Therefore, the ultimate purpose of this paper, in addition

487. 487 to shedding some light on future research along this line, is to appeal for a shift of the

488. 488 focus in translator training to transcreation so that the employability of student translators

489. 489 can be boosted on the one hand and sustainable development in translation courses and

490. 490 programs can be maintained in institutions of higher education on the other. Future re-

491. 491 search may explore how best to design a translation syllabus and optimize the configura-

492. 492 tion of different modules involving transcreation. Transcreation without a source text can

493. 493 also be probed.

Also seems to me that the author’s mother language is not American-English, thus the discrepancies in the text and lack of flow and connectivity. So, the manuscript can benefit from revision to be made by a couple of English speaking educators who are also familiar with the subject matter.

Too many comas in the text ,,,,,,,, making sentences bit fragmented.

The term Student Translator perhaps should be hyphenated for better reading and conceptualization of this specific target population: student-translator(s) or trainer-translators

Text will better read if authors start some paragraphs with “According to so & so (year), … Rather plugging that phrase at the very end of the sentence, SEE line 79 & 106

The statement of the problem is not clear! Because there are online Apps or engines that engage in translation from local-national into global or international languages, does not necessarily eliminate the need for the human factors (translators) like any other discipline or market item, available in person in tangible forms and also electronically in online forms.

Maybe this very paper has been translated into English with the help of computer software program or similar engine : )

The paper quickly moves to become a Case Study - not a discussion/analysis of a major theme topic. Then moves to talk about EDITING on top of the primary subject Translating.

The research method and survey, followed by statistics, then interpretations, all seem reasonable sequences and important steps.

The paper warns against literal translation word for word, verbatim, which is extremely important and commendable.

Then the authors bring up the cross-cultural issues and dynamics, which are extremely important and organic part of any interaction, relationship, and communication: verbal or non-verbal, overt or covert, explicit or implicit.

Here the paper will benefit from citing some major definitions of CULTURE, citing some insights/works in the fields of:

cross-cultural human services,

intercultural & intracultural communication,

layers of multiculturalism,

psychology/sociology of globalization,

links of language-brain-culture,

mentality and tradition,

norms and customs,

social meaning-making,

religion and worldview,

Cultural sensitivity vs counter-culture approaches,

and the like….

Also some literature review needed re: human-machine interaction, experts skills & productivity versus smart machines & computers abilities/productivity. There are a lot of research and insights there.

In the discussion section, it is not clear why the authors focused only on some universities in UK to check whether their MA program incorporates Transcreation, to find only 4 of them do. Since the DGT is the credentialing agency for the EMT in Europe, why not compare that in the whole continent,

It is also common sense that we as trained human students or accomplished experts/scholars alike are aware of the new competition and subtle abilities of computers-soft wares and apps – so we adjust, learn to maneuver, and work in parallel rather one eliminates the other. SO, what is novel about this study and it s finding or recommendation? Not clear!

Some technical notes:

Text needs revision for better language, structure, flow, and cleaning of punctuations.

The tables and inserts within the text are way too many, so I am not sure how professional to keep so many images interrupting the text. Otherwise they need to be reorganized in better way.

The Reference section /Bibliography is too short for such a compound subject. Definitely, it is not in APA style yet looks bit crowded.

SECOND REVIEWER SAID MINOR REVISION and comments below

“The article needs minor revision.It needs to focus on cultural and political discourse of education and post colonial movement. The article lacks theoretical grounds that focus on the discursive parlance of education and its implications for marginal versus core meanings”

[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: Partly

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: No

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: Well, with all respect, this manuscript does not read with a flow, the sequence of ideas and themes is scattered/disrupted, the English language seems in cohesive, and development and rational of arguments is not well defined.

For more detailed review, please see Attached File for my extended comments

Reviewer #2: The article needs minor revision.It needs to focus on cultural and political discourse of education and post colonial movement. The article lacks theoretical grounds that focus on the discursive parlance of education and its implications for marginal versus core meanings.

**********

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: Naji Abi-Hashem, MDiv, MA, PHD, DAAETS

Reviewer #2: Yes: Dr. Sayyed Mohsen Fatemi, Ph.D.

**********

[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.

----

Grant J. Rich, PhD LMT BCTMBPresident-Elect Society for Peace, Conflict, and Violence (APA D48)President-Elect Society for Media Psychology and Technology (APA D46)

Fellow, Association for Psychological Science (APS)Fellow, American Psychological Association (APA)Senior Contributing Faculty, Walden UniversityDr. Rich's SPN Website: http://rich.socialpsychology.org/Book Website (Rich, Gielen, & Takooshian, 2017)http://www.infoagepub.com/products/Internationalizing-the-Teaching-of-PsychologyBook Website (Rich & Sirikantraporn, 2018)https://rowman.com/ISBN/9781498554831/Human-Strengths-and-Resilience-Cross-Cultural-and-International-Perspectives#Book Website (Rich, Jaafar, & Barron, 2020) Psychology in Southeast Asia. Routledge.https://www.routledge.com/Psychology-in-Southeast-Asia-Sociocultural-Clinical-and-Health-Perspectives/Rich-Jaafar-Barron/p/book/9780367492144Book Website (Rich & Ramkumar, 2022) Psychology in Oceania and the Caribbean, Springerhttps://link.springer.com/book/10.1007/978-3-030-87763-7#editorsandaffiliations Book Website(Rich, Kuriansky, Gielen, & Kaplan, in press)  Psychosocial Experiences and Adjustment of Migrants: Coming to the USA, Elsevierhttps://www.elsevier.com/books/psychosocial-experiences-and-adjustment-of-migrants/rich/978-0-12-823794-6 Book (Rich, Kumar, & Farley, in contract) Handbook of Media Psychology and Technology-The Science and the Practice, Springer

Attachments

Attachment

Submitted filename: Sustainability of Translator Training in Higher Ed.docx

Sustainability of Translator Training in Higher Education

PONE-D-22-30289R1

Dear Dr. Zhu,

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,

Grant Rich, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments: