PONE-D-23-00992Student engagement, attendance and inclusion in the learning process are central mechanisms determining academic achievement: Evidence from Afghanistan and PakistanPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Trani,

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 Apr 27 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. Please provide additional details regarding ethical approval in the body of your manuscript. In the Methods section, please ensure that you have specified the name of the IRB/ethics committee that approved your study.

3. Please provide additional details regarding participant consent. In the Methods section, please ensure that you have specified (1) whether consent was informed and (2) what type you obtained (for instance, written or verbal). 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.

4. Please include a complete copy of PLOS’ questionnaire on inclusivity in global research in your revised manuscript. Our policy for research in this area aims to improve transparency in the reporting of research performed outside of researchers’ own country or community. The policy applies to researchers who have travelled to a different country to conduct research, research with Indigenous populations or their lands, and research on cultural artefacts. The questionnaire can also be requested at the journal’s discretion for any other submissions, even if these conditions are not met.  Please find more information on the policy and a link to download a blank copy of the questionnaire here: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/best-practices-in-research-reporting. Please upload a completed version of your questionnaire as Supporting Information when you resubmit your manuscript.

5. 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.

6. We note that you have stated that you will provide repository information for your data at acceptance. Should your manuscript be accepted for publication, we will hold it until you provide the relevant accession numbers or DOIs necessary to access your data. If you wish to make changes to your Data Availability statement, please describe these changes in your cover letter and we will update your Data Availability statement to reflect the information you provide.

7. Please include your full ethics statement in the ‘Methods’ section of your manuscript file. In your statement, please include the full name of the IRB or ethics committee who approved or waived your study, as well as whether or not you obtained informed written or verbal consent. If consent was waived for your study, please include this information in your statement as well.

8. We note that Figure 4 in your submission contain map images which may be copyrighted. All PLOS content is published under the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY 4.0), which means that the manuscript, images, and Supporting Information files will be freely available online, and any third party is permitted to access, download, copy, distribute, and use these materials in any way, even commercially, with proper attribution. For these reasons, we cannot publish previously copyrighted maps or satellite images created using proprietary data, such as Google software (Google Maps, Street View, and Earth). For more information, see our copyright guidelines: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/licenses-and-copyright.

We require you to either (1) present written permission from the copyright holder to publish these figures specifically under the CC BY 4.0 license, or (2) remove the figures from your submission:

 a. You may seek permission from the original copyright holder of Figure 4 to publish the content specifically under the CC BY 4.0 license. 

We recommend that you contact the original copyright holder with the Content Permission Form (http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=7c09/content-permission-form.pdf) and the following text:

“I request permission for the open-access journal PLOS ONE to publish XXX under the Creative Commons Attribution License (CCAL) CC BY 4.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). Please be aware that this license allows unrestricted use and distribution, even commercially, by third parties. Please reply and provide explicit written permission to publish XXX under a CC BY license and complete the attached form.”

Please upload the completed Content Permission Form or other proof of granted permissions as an "Other" file with your submission.

In the figure caption of the copyrighted figure, please include the following text: “Reprinted from [ref] under a CC BY license, with permission from [name of publisher], original copyright [original copyright year].”

 b. If you are unable to obtain permission from the original copyright holder to publish these figures under the CC BY 4.0 license or if the copyright holder’s requirements are incompatible with the CC BY 4.0 license, please either i) remove the figure or ii) supply a replacement figure that complies with the CC BY 4.0 license. Please check copyright information on all replacement figures and update the figure caption with source information. If applicable, please specify in the figure caption text when a figure is similar but not identical to the original image and is therefore for illustrative purposes only.

The following resources for replacing copyrighted map figures may be helpful:

USGS National Map Viewer (public domain): http://viewer.nationalmap.gov/viewer/

The Gateway to Astronaut Photography of Earth (public domain): http://eol.jsc.nasa.gov/sseop/clickmap/

Maps at the CIA (public domain): https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/index.html and https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/cia-maps-publications/index.html

NASA Earth Observatory (public domain): http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/

Landsat: http://landsat.visibleearth.nasa.gov/

USGS EROS (Earth Resources Observatory and Science (EROS) Center) (public domain): http://eros.usgs.gov/#

Natural Earth (public domain): http://www.naturalearthdata.com/

9. We note that Figure 4 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:

The population and topic of focus are significant- there is a paucity- especially in English of data/research on education in these two nations.

Improvements need to be made in the presentation to better communicate findings and to address reviewer feedback.

One reviewer voted to reject but the second reviewer asked for a minor revision, so the overall decision is to ask you to write and submit a "major revision"

Please read the reviewer feedback below and address their comments in your revision. You should especially be sure to address sex differences, and also reasons there may be sex differences, such as religion or culture or history or politics (for instance in India's Haryana state next to India's portion of Punjab, it is very Hindu but also has sex differences such as in proportion of male vs female births.

Be sure to work to clarify and more effectively communicate and explain your theory and your methods and results - the aim of research is to be able to communicate the information so that readers can follow the story you tell.

see reviewer comments below

Grant J Rich, PhD

PLOS ONE Student Engagement Afghanistan and Pakistan

REVIEWER ONE VOTE REJECT AND WROTE

the authors report that there is no consensus as to how quality education can be defined or indeed what the components of such an education could be and then proceed to conduct a very large study which investigates the components which go to child inclusion in the learning process. While child inclusion in the learning process is a noble concern, it could not be said to be the single defining characteristic of quality education. The study was conducted in Afghanistan and Pakistan and the authors do not seem to consider sex differences between male and female children which would definitely impact on the results of the study. I found the manuscript to be really dense to read. The results section was almost impossible to decipher. While child results were found (Table 2) to be a loops component (along with child focus and homework) at least for some of the variables investigated, it is not clear to me that the title indicating the three mechanisms which are central in determining academic achievement is accurate. So the main message the authors wish to convey is that child engagement, child attendance, and child inclusion determine, inter alia, child results. This seems to me to be an overgeneralisation of the results and indeed is not something which most people would consider new knowledge. Generally the manuscript was well written, however there are some grammar issues. There are also instances of in-words being used. As an academic working in the teaching and learning area, although not knowledgeable in the statistics and method used in this study, I found the manuscript almost incomprehensible in parts. If the idea of dissemination via a journal article is dissemination, then the language used should be more easily understood. The logical flow of the manuscript was also lacking in parts. If accepted, the manuscript should be carefully proofread for grammar and/or typing errors and for the use, undefined, of in-house language. The authors say the data are fully available without restriction, but I could not see where the data were available from other than the UK data service which is a controlled data service and you have to apply for access.(less...)

REVIEW TWO VOTED MINOR REVISION AND WROTE

This manuscript on student engagement, motivation, and inclusion deals with information with which I have relatively superficial knowledge. As such, I hope my comments provide useful information for the authors. Overall, I think this manuscript will be an important contribution to the area.

The literature review seems quite thorough and lays out the important issues associated with the research question, and the methodology seems sound. Similarly, the results seem well structured, although I am not familiar with in-depth details about the analysis the researchers conducted. Nonetheless, the graphic presentation of the data, although complex, provides the important detail needed to make sense of the results.

The only aspects that I have comments about follow. They are fairly minor.

1. The authors mention causal mechanisms regarding the variables they identified. I assume it is perceived causation, not causation as produced by experimental methods. As an outsider to this field, I don't know the customs in discussing such aspects of the results, but the element of perception in assessing causal connections seems important to me.

2. In the results, there is a single negative causal link (with multiple positive links). This seems curious, given that negative elements would seem to be related to elements of motivation and engagement and inclusion. Is there a potential explanation for this? Is it an artifact of the nature of the data collected?

3. In the discussion, I was distracted by the quotations. It seems to me that it would be helpful to establish the central points of discussion in a specific and concrete way, with subsequent presentation of the quotations. As it was, I had to move through many statements in an attempt to connect the important ideas.

4. One more theoretical thought I had concerns the degree to which the factors and components are under the control of the various stakeholders. I think it would be an important addition to discuss not only the important components but also the degree to which students, parents, and teachers can structure the environment for optimal outcomes

[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: Yes

**********

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: 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: 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: The authors report that there is no consensus as to how quality education can be defined or indeed what the components of such an education could be and then proceed to conduct a very large study which investigates the components which go to child inclusion in the learning process. While child inclusion in the learning process is a noble concern, it could not be said to be the single defining characteristic of quality education. The study was conducted in Afghanistan and Pakistan and the authors do not seem to consider sex differences between male and female children which would definitely impact on the results of the study. I found the manuscript to be really dense to read. The results section was almost impossible to decipher. While child results were found (Table 2) to be a loops component (along with child focus and homework) at least for some of the variables investigated, it is not clear to me that the title indicating the three mechanisms which are central in determining academic achievement is accurate. So the main message the authors wish to convey is that child engagement, child attendance, and child inclusion determine, inter alia, child results. This seems to me to be an overgeneralisation of the results and indeed is not something which most people would consider new knowledge. Generally the manuscript was well written, however there are some grammar issues. There are also instances of in-words being used. As an academic working in the teaching and learning area, although not knowledgeable in the statistics and method used in this study, I found the manuscript almost incomprehensible in parts. If the idea of dissemination via a journal article is dissemination, then the language used should be more easily understood. The logical flow of the manuscript was also lacking in parts. If accepted, the manuscript should be carefully proofread for grammar and/or typing errors and for the use, undefined, of in-house language. The authors say the data are fully available without restriction, but I could not see where the data were available from other than the UK data service which is a controlled data service and you have to apply for access.

Reviewer #2: This manuscript on student engagement, motivation, and inclusion deals with information with which I have relatively superficial knowledge. As such, I hope my comments provide useful information for the authors. Overall, I think this manuscript will be an important contribution to the area.

The literature review seems quite thorough and lays out the important issues associated with the research question, and the methodology seems sound. Similarly, the results seem well structured, although I am not familiar with in-depth details about the analysis the researchers conducted. Nonetheless, the graphic presentation of the data, although complex, provides the important detail needed to make sense of the results.

The only aspects that I have comments about follow. They are fairly minor.

1. The authors mention causal mechanisms regarding the variables they identified. I assume it is perceived causation, not causation as produced by experimental methods. As an outsider to this field, I don't know the customs in discussing such aspects of the results, but the element of perception in assessing causal connections seems important to me.

2. In the results, there is a single negative causal link (with multiple positive links). This seems curious, given that negative elements would seem to be related to elements of motivation and engagement and inclusion. Is there a potential explanation for this? Is it an artifact of the nature of the data collected?

3. In the discussion, I was distracted by the quotations. It seems to me that it would be helpful to establish the central points of discussion in a specific and concrete way, with subsequent presentation of the quotations. As it was, I had to move through many statements in an attempt to connect the important ideas.

4. One more theoretical thought I had concerns the degree to which the factors and components are under the control of the various stakeholders. I think it would be an important addition to discuss not only the important components but also the degree to which students, parents, and teachers can structure the environment for optimal outcomes.

**********

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: Yes: Bernard C. Beins

**********

[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

Student engagement and attendance are central mechanisms interacting with inclusive and equitable quality education: Evidence from Afghanistan and Pakistan

PONE-D-23-00992R1

Dear Dr. Trani

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):

The authors took care to attend to the reviewer feedback and the article topic and population will make a significant contribution to our understanding of processes in these understudied regions

Reviewers' comments:

Grant J. Rich, PhD

Candidate for President-Elect for the American Psychological Association

President-Elect Society for Peace, Conflict, and Violence (APA)

 

President-Elect Society for Media Psychology and Technology (APA)

Fellow, Association for Psychological Science (APS)

 

Fellow, American Psychological Association (APA) (D1, D2, D46, D48, D52)

Senior Contributing Faculty, Walden University, Juneau, Alaska

 

Editorial Board Member: PLOS ONE, APA's Peace & Conflict, APA's Traumatology

Book Series Co-Editor w/ Anthony Marsella (U. Hawai'i), Springer. International and Cultural Psychology (ICUP)       

 https://www.springer.com/series/6089

 

Select Recent Books

(Rich, Gielen, & Takooshian, 2017). Internationalizing the Teaching of Psychology. IAP.

(Rich & Sirikantraporn, 2018). Human Strengths and Resilience: Cross Cultural and International Perspectives. Rowman & Littlefield.

(Rich, Jaafar, & Barron, 2020). Psychology in Southeast Asia. Routledge.

(Rich & Ramkumar, 2022). Psychology in Oceania and the Caribbean. Springer.

(Rich, Kuriansky, Gielen, & Kaplan, 2023) . Psychosocial Experiences and Adjustment of Migrants: Coming to the USA.  Elsevier.

 

(Rich, Kumar, & Farley, in contract). Handbook of Media Psychology and Technology-The Science and the Practice. Springer.