Who makes a better university adjustment wingman: Parents or friends?

Walton Wider; Jem Cloyd M. Tanucan; Jiaming Lin; Leilei Jiang; Lester Naces Udang

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0294658

Peer Review History

Original SubmissionJune 15, 2023
23 Oct 2023 Decision Letter - Nkosiyazi Dube, Editor PONE-D-23-18382Who Makes a Better University Adjustment Wingman: Parents or Friends?PLOS ONE Dear Dr. Wider, 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 Dec 07 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. We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript. Kind regards, Nkosiyazi Dube, 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. You indicated that ethical approval was not necessary for your study. We understand that the framework for ethical oversight requirements for studies of this type may differ depending on the setting and we would appreciate some further clarification regarding your research. Could you please provide further details on why your study is exempt from the need for approval and confirmation from your institutional review board or research ethics committee (e.g., in the form of a letter or email correspondence) that ethics review was not necessary for this study? Please include a copy of the correspondence as an ""Other"" file. Please also 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. 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. 5. 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. 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: No Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available? The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified. Reviewer #1: No Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English? PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 5. Review Comments to the Author Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters) Reviewer #1: Thank you for the opportunity to review the manuscript. I found the manuscript insightful, however there are some areas that require elaboration, particularly the methods and results section. Below, I have provide specific feedback. Introduction: The section is well written. However, where the authors are making reference to studies carried out elsewhere, I recommend priority be given to recent studies. I came across few outdated sources, for example: Line 43-45 and 69-71, since 1995 university culture has significantly transformed with many universities introducing various student support programmes to facilitate positive adjustment. The student population has also changed, for example - in many African countries we now have many students from previously disadvantaged groups entering universities. This on its own serve as a support system for the groups which were previously underrepresented in the universities. Line 120-121, “most studies agree…” this statement need to be supported by more than 1 citation. Methods: The section can be better presented. I struggled to identify information related to the study design, study setting, and participant sampling strategy. Also, information related to the number of students invited to complete the survey, response rate, complete and incomplete responses is insufficient. I recommend the authors use the following subheadings to present the information: 1. Study design 2. Study setting 3. Sample and participant recruitment Table 1: which faculty/school within the university where these participants drawn from? Literature has shown students experiences differs across faculties and schools. Instruments: “Section A consisted of questions about sociodemographic profiles, such as gender, age, 250 highest level of education, and ethnic group…” It is unclear what are you referring to? I suggest you have a section where you clearly outline the different sections of the survey, and present the participant demographic data as part of the results, so the reader can easily make sense of the survey sections and interpretation. ” Pre-test: What were the results or feedback from the students and academics? Results and discussions: The authors performed relevant tests, however the order is vague, particularly the interpretation. It is difficult is identify what where the key results for each of the studied variables. The discussion is elaborative, however old sources are cited (e.g. Aries & Johnson, 1983; Collins and Repinski (1994); Fraley & Davis, 1997; Kenny, 1987). I recommend the authors attempt to cite recent articles. I have noted data was collected in 2015, since then we have had COVID-19 which negatively affected universities and students' wellbeing across the world. Few studies have since been published, consider interrogating some of these studies, particularly those in line with your results. Theoretical and practical contributions: The contributions of the study are best covered as part of the discussion including policy implications. Reviewer #2: Worth mentioning is that my research niches and the theoretical framework that I use are not clinical, quantitative research and psychology. I'm more into community development and related fields of practice. Nonetheless, I found this paper to have been excellently conceptualized, with logical themes that align the title, the aim, objectives, theoretical frameworks and methodology together. No doubt, these are mature and most likely academics/scholars. I have just a couple of suggestions: the authors must remember that the journal is international and so is their audience. As such the readers need context in respect some abbreviations and standards. ****** 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. Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: PONE-D-23-18382.pdf https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0294658.r001
Revision 1
28 Oct 2023 Author Response #Reviewer 1 1. Introduction: The section is well written. However, where the authors are making reference to studies carried out elsewhere, I recommend priority be given to recent studies. I came across few outdated sources, for example: Line 43-45 and 69-71, since 1995 university culture has significantly transformed with many universities introducing various student support programmes to facilitate positive adjustment. The student population has also changed, for example - in many African countries we now have many students from previously disadvantaged groups entering universities. This on its own serve as a support system for the groups which were previously underrepresented in the universities. Line 120-121, “most studies agree…” this statement need to be supported by more than 1 citation. Answers: - Thank you for the feedback. We updated the references in lines 43-45 and 69-71 to include recent studies and provided multiple citations for the statement on lines 120-121. - Please refer to line 48, and 66-78. - Please refer to line 127-128. 2. Method: The section can be better presented. I struggled to identify information related to the study design, study setting, and participant sampling strategy. Also, information related to the number of students invited to complete the survey, response rate, complete and incomplete responses is insufficient. I recommend the authors use the following subheadings to present the information: 1. Study design 2. Study setting 3. Sample and participant recruitment Table 1: which faculty/school within the university where these participants drawn from? Literature has shown students experiences differs across faculties and schools. Answers: - Thank you for your feedback. We've revised the method section to clearly include: 1. Study Design 2. Study Setting 3. Sample and Participant Recruitment - Thank you for your query. In our study, we only collected data on the field of study and not the specific faculty or school within the university. We have included the information. Please refer to line 277. - Details on the number of invited students, response rate, and complete/incomplete responses have also been added. Please refer to line 229-235. Instruments: “Section A consisted of questions about sociodemographic profiles, such as gender, age, 250 highest level of education, and ethnic group…” It is unclear what are you referring to? I suggest you have a section where you clearly outline the different sections of the survey, and present the participant demographic data as part of the results, so the reader can easily make sense of the survey sections and interpretation. ” - Thank you for your feedback. We've revised the "Instruments" section to clearly outline the different sections of the survey. Please refer to line 258. - In addition, we have moved the participant demographic data to the results for better clarity and understanding. Please refer to line 350-372. Pre-test: What were the results or feedback from the students and academics? Answer: We have included the feedback of students and academics. Please refer to line 325-328. 3. Results and discussions: The authors performed relevant tests, however the order is vague, particularly the interpretation. It is difficult is identify what where the key results for each of the studied variables. The discussion is elaborative, however old sources are cited (e.g. Aries & Johnson, 1983; Collins and Repinski (1994); Fraley & Davis, 1997; Kenny, 1987). I recommend the authors attempt to cite recent articles. Answers: - Thank you for the feedback. We've restructured the results section to sequentially outline the tests performed and to explicitly highlight the key findings for each studied variable. Please refer to 374-434. - Thank you for the feedback. We reviewed the literature and incorporated more recent articles to ensure the discussion was current and relevant. 4. I have noted data was collected in 2015, since then we have had COVID-19 which negatively affected universities and students' wellbeing across the world. Few studies have since been published, consider interrogating some of these studies, particularly those in line with your results. Answers: - Thank you for the feedback. We have revised the manuscript to incorporate recent literature, especially those addressing the impacts of COVID-19 on universities and students' wellbeing. Please refer to line 574-597. 5. Theoretical and practical contributions: The contributions of the study are best covered as part of the discussion including policy implications. Answers: - Thank you for the suggestion. We have revised the section to integrate the theoretical and practical contributions within the discussion. Please refer to line 598-632. #Reviewer 2 1. Worth mentioning is that my research niches and the theoretical framework that I use are not clinical, quantitative research and psychology. I'm more into community development and related fields of practice. Nonetheless, I found this paper to have been excellently conceptualized, with logical themes that align the title, the aim, objectives, theoretical frameworks and methodology together. No doubt, these are mature and most likely academics/scholars. I have just a couple of suggestions: the authors must remember that the journal is international and so is their audience. As such the readers need context in respect some abbreviations and standards. Answer: Thank you for your valuable feedback and kind words regarding the paper's conceptualization and alignment. We appreciate the perspective you've provided from the community development field. Taking note of your suggestions, we have revised the manuscript to provide clearer context for abbreviations and standards to cater to our international audience. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0294658.r002
7 Nov 2023 Decision Letter - Nkosiyazi Dube, Editor Who makes a better university adjustment wingman? Parents or friends? PONE-D-23-18382R1 Dear Dr. Wider Walton, 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, Nkosiyazi Dube, Ph.D Academic Editor PLOS ONE Additional Editor Comments (optional): Thank you for the revisions and for paying attention to detail. This is an important study. Reviewers' comments: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0294658.r003
Formally Accepted
11 Dec 2023 Acceptance Letter - Nkosiyazi Dube, Editor PONE-D-23-18382R1 Who makes a better university adjustment wingman: parents or friends? Dear Dr. Wider: I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department. If your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org. If we can help with anything else, please email us at customercare@plos.org. Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access. Kind regards, PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff on behalf of Dr. Nkosiyazi Dube Academic Editor PLOS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0294658.r004

Open letter on the publication of peer review reports

PLOS recognizes the benefits of transparency in the peer review process. Therefore, we enable the publication of all of the content of peer review and author responses alongside final, published articles. Reviewers remain anonymous, unless they choose to reveal their names.

We encourage other journals to join us in this initiative. We hope that our action inspires the community, including researchers, research funders, and research institutions, to recognize the benefits of published peer review reports for all parts of the research system.

Learn more at ASAPbio .