PONE-D-22-24697Academic performance of secondary school students in relation to parenting styles and family socioeconomic status: What attributes are important and how much?PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Ali,

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. In addition, particular attention must be paid to the following comments. 

• The article needs a thorough English proofreading and editing.
• Clarity and problematization in the introduction section needed.
• Review of literature should cover all the aspects of the topic.
• Theoretical background must be in line with the topic.
• Methodology section needs clarity and relevance in each steps. 
• Primary data must be presented properly in results section while the discussion part should be based on the discussion generated on the basis of the key finings. The primary data is somehow underrepresented in the results and discussion parts which need to be properly addressed accordingly. 

Please submit your revised manuscript by Dec 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,

Ikram Shah, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at 

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and 

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. Please provide additional details regarding participant consent. In the ethics statement in the Methods and online submission information, please ensure that you have specified (1) whether consent was informed and (2) what type you obtained (for instance, written or verbal, and if verbal, how it was documented and witnessed). If your study included minors, state whether you obtained consent from parents or guardians. If the need for consent was waived by the ethics committee, please include this information.

If you are reporting a retrospective study of medical records or archived samples, please ensure that you have discussed whether all data were fully anonymized before you accessed them and/or whether the IRB or ethics committee waived the requirement for informed consent. If patients provided informed written consent to have data from their medical records used in research, please include this information.

3. 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.

4. PLOS requires an ORCID iD for the corresponding author in Editorial Manager on papers submitted after December 6th, 2016. Please ensure that you have an ORCID iD and that it is validated in Editorial Manager. To do this, go to ‘Update my Information’ (in the upper left-hand corner of the main menu), and click on the Fetch/Validate link next to the ORCID field. This will take you to the ORCID site and allow you to create a new iD or authenticate a pre-existing iD in Editorial Manager. Please see the following video for instructions on linking an ORCID iD to your Editorial Manager account: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_xcclfuvtxQ

5. We note you have included a table to which you do not refer in the text of your manuscript. Please ensure that you refer to Table 3 in your text; if accepted, production will need this reference to link the reader to the Table.

6. 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: Comments to Authors

The article is good contribution to understand the parental relation and activities with performance of their children. However, to make the article more clear to readers, some minor comments are hereby added.

Introduction: introduction is weak in term of discussion of problem in the study area even the literature on national and regional is not well presented.

The objectives and aim of the study should be made part of the introduction instead putting in separate section.

Repetition in introduction, literature and discussion is found in number of places, this should be avoided.

Theory section is limited to only one modal of Bronfenbrenner, other teaching, opportunities and psychological modals have been ignored.

Methodology section:

- The Cross sectional design of the study is followed but the author did not justify why it is necessary for this study?

- The context of multi stage sampling may not be relevant, only saying “District Malakand and its two Tehsils were purposively selected at first and second stage” may not justify the multi stage sampling technique. Purposive sampling with specific criteria would be better suited to such studies.

- Characteristics of respondents and conceptual framework with such headings and short explanation may be avoided and instead may be added in the research design.

Results and discussion:

The major issues I found is that either this article is review article or based on primary data. The discussion is totally taken from secondary sources and primary data has very weak presentation. My suggestions to authors to focus more on your own data, however, you may support the argument with other literature.

The sample selected composed bot boys and girls, similarly government and private schools, but there is no discussion of how girls performed in relation to authoritative, authoritarian and submissive role?? The culture and condition for girls in the study area is very different and difficult, similarly the parents relations to boys and girls in term of education achievement is totally different but I can’t see such discussion or data.

There is also difference in government and private school students performance and attitude of parents towards children studying in both category of schools but such context have been totally ignored.

The recommendations added are beyond the findings, the author should avoid such recommendation and limit these as per result of the research. Recommendation should be revised.

Proofreading, clarity of sentences, abbreviation and repetition need to be corrected and followed in revised submission.

Reviewer #2: The study conducted is overall sound and contains quite a bit of information regarding the topic and findings. The findings of the paper are based on the data presented and the discussion is presented in detail, with adequate reference to other similar studies. In terms of the writing style and grammar of the main body of text, there are some clarity and grammatical issues which must be addressed before the acceptance of the paper. More specific comments on the different sections and aspects are highlighted as follows.

The quality of writing, grammar and use of proper standard English are lacking throughout the manuscript. For example in the sentence "However, certain social factors are much detrimental to put youth at the disadvantaged side in an unequal society, as the benefits of some interventions trickle differently to youth from different socioeconomic groups." many grammatical mistakes are apparent which effect the overall quality of the paper. The authors are strongly recommended to proofread and edit the manuscript for language and proper use of grammar. Personally I feel like the 'how much' in your title "Academic performance of secondary school students in relation to parenting styles and family socioeconomic status: What attributes are important and how much?" does not sound right and could perhaps be reworded for a more suiting phrase.

I feel that the literature on 'parenting styles' especially is not very broad. In the introduction, only one major perspective from literature is repeatedly referred to, indicating a limited and very restrictive conception of the concept and its importance as a variable linked to academic performance. furthermore, there is NO literature included on the concept in the literature review section. Why is this so? the literature review almost exclusively focuses on the relation of socio-economic status with academic performance. The literature review needs to be more balanced, covering the various aspects of the study and the relevant literature thereof.

Regarding the theoretical section of the paper, many aspects of the theory chosen will not be used at all. Why is this? I did not see any justification of why only two layers were used instead of the four presented in the theory.

It would also be nice to include the different aspects of your main variables and how they affect academic outcomes in the introduction. Additionally, why has such a narrow conception of academic performance in the case of this study been used? Academic performance can be based on many variables as reported in the literature, so why does this study ignore all and only focus on one? There is some need for justifications in this regards. Furthermore, although the introduction does introduce the main aspects and topics of the study, the 'probelm' of the study is not adequately defined.

Some of the information given in the first few sections of the paper seem to be over generalized, which should be avoided. For example the statement "The reason for the poor academic achievements of students in the poor and developing countries (South Asian and African) are almost the same". In my opinion such gross generalizations may not be appropriate.

Relating to the following paragraph .......“The domain of occupation/major income source was measured on four levels scale (1=private job/business, 2=agriculture, 3=remittances and 4=government job). Based on the scores level, the highest possible score of the three mentioned domains measuring socioeconomic status (SES) of the family became 14” Thus respondents with a score of 7 or below on the socioeconomic status scale were ranked into Low Socioeconomic status families and those scoring above 7 on the scale were considered as from High Socioeconomic status families"........the classification of occupation or sources of income is not clear to me. Why are private jobs and businesses ranked much lower than Government Jobs and remittances? Is this strictly based on economic terms? Arguably some private jobs and businesses would clearly be more economically lucrative than government jobs, or is this assumption wrong. It would be therefore helpful to discuss why the criteria was set as such, and what the reasons were behind such a ranking.

Although the discussion section is very well linked to current research, this perhaps means less reflection and opinion from the researchers themselves, which would add some richness to this section.

**********

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.

PONE-D-22-24697R1Academic performance of secondary school students in relation to parenting styles, student gender and family socioeconomic status: What attributes are important and what is the extent of their influence?PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Ali,

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. You need to pay significant attention to the following comments raised by one of our esteemed reviewer during the review process. The texts highlighted in yellow color must be incorporated otherwise your paper will not be processed further.   Revised comments

The authors have revised most of the comments, and agree to their response, however, some comments need to be incorporated. The article may be then processed for publication.

I personally not satisfied with title; it does not look professional. This need to be revised and should be between 12-16 words.

My suggestion is to avoid headings in abstract and this should be whole one paragraph, unless not required to journal. Also revised the methodology section in the abstract because you have already revised the sampling techniques. The language in result section of abstract may be corrected, e.g. see the sentence. “The family socioeconomic status emerged as the strongest predictor of the academic performance of children (β=18.25) followed by the interaction of socioeconomic status and authoritative parenting (β=14.18), authoritative parenting (β=13.38), the interaction of socioeconomic status and permissive parenting (β=11.46), and permissive parenting (β=9.2).

The authors claim their response that introduction has been revised as per earlier comments, but I can’t see the comments incorporated. It is good that you reduced the introduction, but you did not introduce the aim and objectives of the study in introduction. The readers would be interested to quickly grasp the main purpose of research in the very beginning.

The section on “National and International Scenario “ may come before the theoretical debate and may be continued with introduction and this would then clarify my above comments on introduction.

The socioeconomic status and monthly income may be revised “(1=monthly income

less than PRs. 15, 000, 2=monthly income PRs. 15,000-30,000 and 3= monthly income above PRs.

30,000)“. Under international standard all the above categories fall below the poverty line and low socio-economic status. This may be inline with minimum wage labour PKRS, 25000, i.e. upto 25000, 26000 to 50000 and 51000 and above.

In conclusion, the second part of this sentences does not clarify the purpose that you are conveying “In addition, the family socioeconomic status emerged as the strongest predictor of the academic performance of children, followed by the interaction of socioeconomic status and authoritative parenting, the interaction of socioeconomic status and permissive parenting, authoritative parenting and permissive parenting” what you want to convey from this sentence??

Under recommendation you have added the following

“The findings also call for the mobilization of charitable resources like Zakat (religious binding on rich Muslims to distribute 2.5% of their financial resources like gold, silver and /or money among needy poor) and Ushr (religious binding on Muslim farmers to distribute 1/10th to 1/20th of their agriculture produce among needy poor) with a strong religious endorsement for supporting educational and other financial needs of families with low socioeconomic status” .

How you relate this with your result and findings? Is there any such findings or analysis?? You may put recommendation only in relation to your variables.

Please submit your revised manuscript by April 30, 2023. 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,

Ikram Shah, 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 #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: Revised comments

The authors have revised most of the comments, and agree to their response, however, some comments need to be incorporated. The article may be then processed for publication.

I personally not satisfied with title; it does not look professional. This need to be revised and should be between 12-16 words.

My suggestion is to avoid headings in abstract and this should be whole one paragraph, unless not required to journal. Also revised the methodology section in the abstract because you have already revised the sampling techniques. The language in result section of abstract may be corrected, e.g. see the sentence. “The family socioeconomic status emerged as the strongest predictor of the academic performance of children (β=18.25) followed by the interaction of socioeconomic status and authoritative parenting (β=14.18), authoritative parenting (β=13.38), the interaction of socioeconomic status and permissive parenting (β=11.46), and permissive parenting (β=9.2).

The authors claim their response that introduction has been revised as per earlier comments, but I can’t see the comments incorporated. It is good that you reduced the introduction, but you did not introduce the aim and objectives of the study in introduction. The readers would be interested to quickly grasp the main purpose of research in the very beginning.

The section on “National and International Scenario “ may come before the theoretical debate and may be continued with introduction and this would then clarify my above comments on introduction.

The socioeconomic status and monthly income may be revised “(1=monthly income

less than PRs. 15, 000, 2=monthly income PRs. 15,000-30,000 and 3= monthly income above PRs.

30,000)“. Under international standard all the above categories fall below the poverty line and low socio-economic status. This may be inline with minimum wage labour PKRS, 25000, i.e. upto 25000, 26000 to 50000 and 51000 and above.

In conclusion, the second part of this sentences does not clarify the purpose that you are conveying “In addition, the family socioeconomic status emerged as the strongest predictor of the academic performance of children, followed by the interaction of socioeconomic status and authoritative parenting, the interaction of socioeconomic status and permissive parenting, authoritative parenting and permissive parenting” what you want to convey from this sentence??

Under recommendation you have added the following

“The findings also call for the mobilization of charitable resources like Zakat (religious binding on rich Muslims to distribute 2.5% of their financial resources like gold, silver and /or money among needy poor) and Ushr (religious binding on Muslim farmers to distribute 1/10th to 1/20th of their agriculture produce among needy poor) with a strong religious endorsement for supporting educational and other financial needs of families with low socioeconomic status” .

How you relate this with your result and findings? Is there any such findings or analysis?? You may put recommendation only in relation to your variables.

Reviewer #2: I am satisfied with the changes made by the authors in response to my comments. Almost all issues were dealt with, which has improved the quality of the manuscript and therefore I now recommend it for publication.

**********

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 #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.

PONE-D-22-24697R2Academic performance of children in relation to gender, parenting styles, and socioeconomic status: what attributes are importantPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Nayab Ali,

Thank you for submitting your revised 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 with minor changes of your manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process. 1. Rephrase the sentence in introduction section "Also, when the state has more citizens with poor academic skills, they are not able to introduce productivity-enhancing technologies and new......"  2. Avoid the abbreviations such as etc3. The sentence  starting from "These factors include individual, social and institutional characteristics and so on" the phrase "so on" does not make any sense you have to explain all the factors or factors of your interest here in detail, the phrase "so on" makes the sentence ambiguous.4. Aim and objectives should be presented in introduction section without heading and subheading(s). For this purpose a dedicated single paragraph may be used to present them. 5. In methodology section, details on the study area must be added for the readers who are not familiar with local context and arrangements.6. Rephrase the sentence of Cronbach value of the scale used in this study that should indicate the value of each scale for this study within the accepted range.7. Although it is well explained in the ethical statement that informed consent was taken from Head of the educational institute but little has been mentioned that how informed consent was taken from students.  8. A more detail may be added for the protocol of each interview. 9. Conflict of interest must be presented just after the conclusion. 10. The asterisk in Table 7 must be defined in parenthesis.11. In discussion some sentences are quite interesting and confusing such as "Thus the democratic culture promotes............, The author added................., Researcher himself (which indicates that a single research involvement in this study). Check all these sentences for correction and relevance with your study. 12. In conclusion the authors claim that this study has policy implications but could not provide any detail on how and where aspects of policy implication. 13. The author need to argue that why gender variable is not significant in this study with scientific reason(s).14. Few practical recommendations may be present that should be within the mandate of legal and policy instruments. Irrelevant recommendation may be removed.   15. Please check reference number 2, 8, 13, 19, and 25.  

Please submit your revised manuscript by April 30, 2023. 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,

Ikram Shah, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

Academic performance of children in relation to gender, parenting styles, and socioeconomic status: what attributes are important

PONE-D-22-24697R3

Dear Dr. Nayab Ali,

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,

Ikram Shah, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments: