Investigating the conception of collaborative learning (CL) and student engagement in the acquisition of practical skills (SEPSA) among prospective physical education and sports students.

PONE-D-23-18581

Dear Dr. Temirkhanov,

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,

Ender Senel, PhD

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. 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

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: Dear author/Editor,

I recently had the opportunity to read the article titled "Investigating the Conception of Collaborative Learning (CL) and Student Engagement in the Acquisition of Practical Skills (SEPSA) among Prospective Physical Education and Sports Students," and I must say that it greatly impressed me in several ways. This review is based on the criteria outlined for publication in PLOS ONE, and I believe this article fulfills each of these criteria exceptionally well.

1. Original Research: The article unquestionably meets the requirement of presenting original research. It delves into an important topic within the field of physical education and sports, shedding light on the often-overlooked nexus between collaborative learning and student engagement in skill acquisition.

2. Publication Novelty: The statistical results are well explained and support research findings, which underscores its novelty and relevance to the field.

3. Technical Standard: The study stands out for its high technical standard. The experimental design, data collection, and statistical analyses are meticulously detailed, allowing for a thorough understanding of the methodology employed.

4. Data-Supported Conclusions: The conclusions drawn in the article are robust and are firmly supported by the presented data. The authors have done an exemplary job of connecting their findings to the research questions, leaving no room for ambiguity.

5. Clarity and Standard English: The article is written in standard English, making it accessible and intelligible to a wide audience. The clarity of the prose greatly enhances the reader's ability to comprehend the research findings and implications.

6. Ethical Standards: It is evident that the research adheres to the highest ethical standards. The authors have taken care to ensure the ethics of experimentation and research integrity, which is crucial for maintaining the trustworthiness of scientific research.

7. Data Availability: The article meets the requirement for data availability by adhering to appropriate reporting guidelines and community standards. This commitment to transparency enhances the credibility of the research.

In conclusion, the article "Investigating the Conception of Collaborative Learning (CL) and Student Engagement in the Acquisition of Practical Skills (SEPSA) among Prospective Physical Education and Sports Students" not only satisfies but excels in meeting the criteria set by PLOS ONE. It is a commendable piece of research that contributes significantly to the understanding of collaborative learning and student engagement in the context of practical skill acquisition. I wholeheartedly recommend its publication in PLOS ONE, as it undoubtedly represents a valuable addition to the scientific literature in the field of physical education and sports.

Reviewer #2: I have thoroughly reviewed the manuscript and am pleased to offer my feedback for publication. The manuscript under consideration presents a well-structured and comprehensive study on collaborative learning (CL) and student engagement in the acquisition of practical skills (SEPSA). The authors have conducted rigorous research, and their findings are both relevant and significant to the field. Furthermore, the manuscript is exceptionally well-written and organized. The introduction effectively establishes the context, and the materials and methods section provides clear and detailed information regarding the study design and data collection process. Based on the strengths of this manuscript, including its methodological rigor, clarity of presentation, original contribution, and robust data analysis, I recommend that this manuscript be accepted for publication in PLOS ONE.

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: Yes: Dr. Muhammad Ali

Reviewer #2: No

**********