PONE-D-23-23929Students' Experience of Interpersonal Interactions Quality in E-Learning: A Qualitative ResearchPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Hasanvand,

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.

==============================Dear authors,Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOSE ONE.I have now received the reviews from the reviewers. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but needs revision. Please carefully address the comments and provide a line-by-line letter of response and highlight all the changes you make with different comments. If you disagree with the reviewers' comments, please write a rebuttal lefting your disagreement.Along with the reviewers' comments, please do consider the following points:1. The abstract is not informative. It lacks adequate knowledge about methodology. Moreover, whatever you wrote as Conclusion are not Conclusion but Implication. Please divide the Abstract into 6 parts: Background, Purpose, Method, Results, Conclusion, Implications2. The paper needs careful proofreading. It suffers from language problems, grammar, repetitions, tenses, subject-verb disagreement, etc)3. The introduction does not build a logical case and context for the problem statement.4. Theoretical framework/s and empirical evidence for introducing and supporting variables are weak in this paper.5. The introduction needs more focus on setting the context- describe the situation followed by the ‘problem’ which leads to the research question and your approach to solving the problem.More importantly, The paper lacks Statement of the Problem. What is (are) the problem(s) of this study? The authors should explain it in a separate subheading. In Statement of the Problem, the authors should first mention the problems and then bring at least one national finding and one international finding related to the problems.6. The Introduction should provide background information and the aims and rationale behind the paper. This will allow a clear understanding of the context and importance of the study. The “big picture’ relevance is important in the introduction which I couldn’t see it.7. The paper needs a literature review. In addition, and most importantly, the theoretical frameworks are missed from the manuscripts. For example, how does the data shape our current understanding of the topic? There was no conceptual framework to understand the data and the data was not as developed as I would expect to see in an academic journal article.8. To my humble opinion, discussion needs a deeper look.  In discussion: 1) the authors should mention the main reasons behind these results. Why such results obtained? What were the plausible reasons? 2) The authors should mention whether the result of their study is in line or in contrast with the previous studies by giving critical  reasons. 3) Discussion must be linked to theoretical frameworks. It can be strengthened by supporting the results with theoretical framework. It may mean that the authors must tell the readers and discuss what theory/theories support their findings. 9. Please add the implications of the study, limitations of the study, and suggestions for future researchers.

10. Please add more updated references (2021-2023).Good LuckEhsan NamaziandostAcademic Editor

==============================

Please submit your revised manuscript by Oct 29 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,

Ehsan Namaziandost

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. Thank you for stating the following in your Competing Interests section:  

"The author(s) received no specific funding for this work."

Please complete your Competing Interests on the online submission form to state any Competing Interests. If you have no competing interests, please state "The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.", as detailed online in our guide for authors at http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submit-now 

 This information should be included in your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf.

3. 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.

[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

Reviewer #3: Yes

Reviewer #4: Partly

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

Reviewer #4: 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

Reviewer #3: Yes

Reviewer #4: No

**********

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

Reviewer #3: Yes

Reviewer #4: No

**********

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 present study has been done with a clear method and the findings have been well defined and discussed. Tips for improving the article have been included in the text as comments, which are provided to you in the attached text

Reviewer #2: it seems that in the method of content analysis based on Granheim and Lundman's method, as explained in the method, codes and subcategories and category are presented, and categories are not combined and themes are not extracted.

In the presented table, it seems that the first column is not the subcategory, but the extracted codes, and the second column is the subcategories and the third column is the category.

system factors are mentioned and it is expected that it will have sub-layers as a layer. Based on the evidence of this study and personal experience, I would like to say that system factors can include two sub-categories, including student-related factors and teacher-related factors, and the codes related to each of these sub-categories can be educational support and support. technical support related to the student as well as educational support and technical support related to the teacher and according to experience and articles studied with the same analysis method, a category cannot end with one theme.

In the method, it s noted medical students, including doctors, dentists, etc., were interviewed, while only one nurse and midwife was interviewed, and the rest of the students were related to e-learning. Therefore, it is better to mention it as a limitation in generalizing the findings. Based on the results and limitations, suggestions for further studies should be provided.

Reviewer #3: A valuable manuscript on teaching and learning. The background and methods were explained well.

Abstract:

Consider using more specific terms when describing the research methods. For example, you mentioned "electronic interviews," which could be clarified as "online interviews" or "virtual interviews."

It might be beneficial to include a brief sentence highlighting the main practical implications of your study. What can educators, institutions, or policymakers learn from your findings.

please write e- learning in the keywords.

Introduction:

you've mentioned that "the quality of interpersonal interactions is a neglected link in e-learning," you could expand on this by briefly discussing why this gap in research exists and why it's important to fill it.

Carefully review the grammar, especially in longer sentences.

Methods:

Please provide a sufficient explanation about the field of study and students in the methods section.

Results:

In the result section, the third theme can emerge into the second one.

Conclusion:

It would be good if the author could explain the practical implication of this study.

Reviewer #4: The study suffers from some pitfalls. They are listed below:

- The introduction is chaotic. It does not mirror the significance of the study.

- The study lacks a rigorous literature review to explain the key concepts of the study.

- The design of the study is not clear. Explain why the authors have used this design.

- The participants section needs revisions to include more demographic information about the participants. Moreover, the author should explain how they accessed the participants and earned their consent.

- The procedures taken for data analysis should be expanded and verified.

- The data analysis procedures should be clearly mentioned and defined for readers

- Enough information about the results should be provided for readers.

- The qualitative results need to be revised. First present the theme, then define it, after that offer some excerpts to support the themes.

- The discussion section is really poor. It does not discuss the findings critically.

- The study does not have suggestions for further research.

- The study lacks implications for the pertinent stakeholders. Please fix this problem

- The references are not following APA guidelines. Please revise them.

With best regards,

**********

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: Shadi Asadzandi

Reviewer #2: No

Reviewer #3: Yes: Mitra Amini

Reviewer #4: 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-23-23929_reviewer (1).pdf

PONE-D-23-23929R1Students' Experience of Interpersonal Interactions Quality in e-Learning: A Qualitative ResearchPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Hasanvand,

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 Jan 13 2024 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,

Ehsan Namaziandost

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments:

Dear authors,

Thank you for the revision. Unfortunately, the reviewers, as well as I, are still not satisfied with the revision and raised serous points. The reviewers claimed that if their comments are not considered very carefully, the manuscript will be rejected.

Thus, I would like to give you another chance to revise to your paper based on the reviewers comments. Please highlight the changes and provide a point by point response to the comments.

All the best,

Ehsan Namaziandost

PLOS ONE Editor

[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

Reviewer #3: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #4: (No Response)

Reviewer #5: 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

Reviewer #3: Yes

Reviewer #4: Partly

Reviewer #5: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: N/A

Reviewer #3: Yes

Reviewer #4: No

Reviewer #5: 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

Reviewer #3: Yes

Reviewer #4: Yes

Reviewer #5: 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

Reviewer #3: Yes

Reviewer #4: No

Reviewer #5: 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: All my comments have been applied in the article and I think the article has no problem and has been accepted

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

Reviewer #3: Dear authors

Thanks for revision. The manuscript is now acceptable. You answered all of my comments.

Reviewer #4: Though the authors made some modifications, there are still major issues with the manuscript. I just listed some of them below:

- There are many claims in the introduction part which need citations. Please fix this problem.

- The citations are not following the format of the journal. Please fix this problem.

- The significance of the study has not been well discussed in the introduction parts. It is not clear why the authors decided to conduct this study.

- The theoretical background of the study is missing. The authors are supposed to explain the theoretical underpinning on which the study has been rested.

- The required information about the participants should be discussed. Moreover, the authors are supposed to explain how they met the ethical requirements during the study.

- The data collection procedures are quiet vague. Please rephrase this part.

- The procedures taken to analyse the gained data are quiet problematic. The authors should explain in details the ways through which they might have analyzed the data. Additionally, it should be reported the ways through which the authors measured the reliability and validity of the gained findings.

- For the findings sections, follow the following blueprint:

Theme …. Definition of Them …. Excerpts support the theme

- The discussion part needs to be critical. The authors need to revise it to make it more critical based on the available literature.

- Given the limitations imposed on the study, some suggestions for further research need to be offered for potential readers.

- The references are not following the APA 7th style.

- The language of the manuscript needs substantial improvement. There are grammatical and lexical problems throughout the manuscript.

With best regards,

Reviewer #5: Dear authors,

I had the chance to review the revised version of the paper "Students' Experience of Interpersonal Interactions Quality in e-Learning: A Qualitative Research". I provided a detailed review/evaluation referring to each comment of the previous reviewers with the correction made by the authors in the manuscript. In my overall opinion, the revised version has met the standards of the PLOS ONE journal and could be considered for publication.

Best regards,

**********

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

Reviewer #3: Yes: Mitra Amini

Reviewer #4: Yes: Afsheen Rezai

Reviewer #5: 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: Dear members of the editorial board.pdf

Students' Experience of Interpersonal Interactions Quality in e-Learning: A Qualitative Research

PONE-D-23-23929R2

Dear Dr. Hasanvand,

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,

Ehsan Namaziandost

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

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

Reviewer #4: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #5: 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: (No Response)

Reviewer #4: Yes

Reviewer #5: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

Reviewer #4: Yes

Reviewer #5: 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

Reviewer #4: Yes

Reviewer #5: 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

Reviewer #4: No

Reviewer #5: 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: Hello

All the comments have been well applied by the authors and in my opinion there is no problem in the work and the work is approved

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

Reviewer #4: Before sending the manuscript to publication office, the manuscript should be proofread one more time. At the present status, it is not readable enough.

Reviewer #5: Dear author,

Thank you for considering my comments on your paper. In my opinion the revised version has met the standards of the PLOS ONE journal and could be considered for publication.

Best regards,

**********

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

Reviewer #4: No

Reviewer #5: No

**********