The impact of work values on the professional development of primary and secondary school teachers: A moderated mediation model

Guoyan Feng; Keke Shi; Qiyong Huang; Jingling Ma

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0310078

Peer Review History

Original SubmissionJanuary 25, 2024
22 Mar 2024 Decision Letter - Zahra Masood Bhutta, Editor PONE-D-24-02012The impact of work values on the professional development of primary and secondary school teachers: A moderated mediation modelPLOS ONE Dear Dr. Feng, 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 May 05 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, Zahra Masood Bhutta Academic Editor PLOS ONE Journal Requirements: 1. When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements. 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 in your Funding Statement: The author(s) declare financial support was received for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article. This research was funded by Educational Science Planning Project (Higher Education Project; 2022GXJK383); Guangdong Sports Bureau Project (GDSS2022N143); Guangdong Higher Education Association Private higher education Professional Committee (2022MBGJ073); Guangdong Province Undergraduate College Teaching Quality and Teaching Reform Project (2022J013/2022J038); Guangzhou Philosophy and Social Science Planning Project (2021GZGJ164); Guangzhou Xinhua University Science Research Project (2020KYYB07); and Guangzhou Xinhua University College Students Innovation and Entrepreneurship Project (S202313902015) Please provide an amended statement that declares all the funding or sources of support (whether external or internal to your organization) received during this study, as detailed online in our guide for authors at http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submit-now. Please also include the statement “There was no additional external funding received for this study.” in your updated Funding Statement. Please include your amended Funding Statement within your cover letter. We will change the online submission form on your behalf. 3. In the online submission form, you indicated that The original contributions presented in the study are included in the article/supplementary material, further inquiries can be directed to the corresponding author(fenggy3@mail2.sysu.edu.cn). All PLOS journals now require all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript to be freely available to other researchers, either a. In a public repository, b. Within the manuscript itself, or c. Uploaded as supplementary information. This policy applies to all data except where public deposition would breach compliance with the protocol approved by your research ethics board. If your data cannot be made publicly available for ethical or legal reasons (e.g., public availability would compromise patient privacy), please explain your reasons on resubmission and your exemption request will be escalated for approval. 4. When completing the data availability statement of the submission form, you indicated that you will make your data available on acceptance. We strongly recommend all authors decide on a data sharing plan before acceptance, as the process can be lengthy and hold up publication timelines. Please note that, though access restrictions are acceptable now, your entire data will need to be made freely accessible if your manuscript is accepted for publication. This policy applies to all data except where public deposition would breach compliance with the protocol approved by your research ethics board. If you are unable to adhere to our open data policy, please kindly revise your statement to explain your reasoning and we will seek the editor's input on an exemption. Please be assured that, once you have provided your new statement, the assessment of your exemption will not hold up the peer review process. 5. One of the noted authors is a group or consortium. In addition to naming the author group, please list the individual authors and affiliations within this group in the acknowledgments section of your manuscript. Please also indicate clearly a lead author for this group along with a contact email address. 6. Please remove your figures from within your manuscript file, leaving only the individual TIFF/EPS image files, uploaded separately. These will be automatically included in the reviewers’ PDF. 7. Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice. [Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.] Reviewers' comments: Reviewer's Responses to Questions Comments to the Author 1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions? The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Partly ******** 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: 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: Comments to Authors Abstract Overall, the abstract provides a concise overview of the study's objectives, methodology, key findings, and implications. Here are some critical comments for the authors: 1. Regarding the structure and alignment, the abstract would benefit from a more organized layout to enhance readability and coherence. 2. Ensuring that each sentence flows logically into the next and that key points are clearly emphasized could improve the overall structure. 3. Additionally, the abstract is somewhat lengthy and could be condensed to 200 words or less to maintain brevity while still effectively summarizing the study's objectives, methodology, findings, and implications. 4. Finally, while the abstract is generally well-written, attention to minor language and grammar issues, such as awkward phrasing or punctuation errors, is recommended to enhance clarity and professionalism. Addressing these aspects would help strengthen the abstract and make it more impactful for readers. Introduction 1. The introduction is indeed well-written, providing a comprehensive overview of the research topic and its significance. However, there are a couple of areas where the authors could improve: 2. While the content is strong, attention to layout details such as spacing and alignment would enhance the presentation quality. Ensuring consistent formatting throughout the text will contribute to a polished appearance. 3. The authors should review the reference style to align with the guidelines of PLOS ONE. Consistency in referencing style is crucial for professionalism and adherence to journal requirements. 4. Although the introduction effectively identifies the gap in the literature, the specific research objectives could be articulated more clearly to guide readers on what to expect from the study. Clearly stating the research questions or hypotheses would provide readers with a roadmap for understanding the study's aims and contributions. 5. While the conclusion of the introduction emphasizes the significance of the study, the authors could further elaborate on the unique contributions of the research and how it advances knowledge in the field. Providing a more detailed discussion of the potential theoretical and practical implications of the study's findings would enhance the clarity and impact of the introduction. Literature Review 1. Ensure that the referencing style aligns with the guidelines of the target journal, such as PLOS ONE. Consistency in referencing style is crucial for maintaining professionalism and meeting journal requirements. 2. Incorporate more updated references to ensure the literature review reflects the most current research in the field. Including recent studies will enhance the relevance and credibility of the literature review. 3. Clarify and separate the hypotheses related to the direct relationship between the independent variable (work values) and the mediator (work engagement), as well as the moderation effects of perceived organizational support. Presenting these hypotheses separately would improve clarity and facilitate understanding for the reader. 4. Provide a brief theoretical background before presenting the research model. This background should succinctly summarize relevant theoretical frameworks or concepts that support the study's hypotheses and research model. This addition will enhance the theoretical foundation of the study and provide context for the research model. Methodology 1. The methodology section appears to prioritize demographic details over discussing the actual study methodology. It is recommended to provide a brief discussion of the demographic characteristics within the text and present the detailed demographic information in a table for better readability and organization. 2. The methodology does not address how data were collected from multiple provinces. If the data were collected online, it raises questions about the high response rate of 95.7%, which is unusually high for online surveys. Authors should provide justification for this high response rate to ensure the reliability and validity of the collected data. 3. The methodology discusses the measurement scales in detail. However, it would be more effective to consolidate this information into a single paragraph for clarity. Additionally, the discussion of reliability measures such as Cronbach's alpha and confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) should be moved to the results section, and the results should be presented in tabular format for easier reference. 4. As the authors is using control variables in the study also, I would suggest to provide brief detail about your control variables along with justification for using these variables as control. 5. The track changes should be removed from the manuscript, particularly from lines 191 to 193, to ensure the document's professional presentation. Results 1. The results section is commendably well-written and presented, demonstrating a strong presentation of findings. However, one aspect that requires attention is the discussion of scale reliability and validity. It is essential to include a detailed discussion of these aspects within the text of the results section, along with presenting the corresponding statistics in a table format. This will ensure a comprehensive evaluation of the measurement instruments used in the study and enhance the transparency of the findings. Discussion 2. The discussion is again well written however I would suggest, Provide a more thorough integration of current results with previous research on work values, work engagement, and organizational support in the context of teacher professional development. 3. Elaborate on specific strategies or interventions based on the findings and suggest future research directions to address remaining questions or potential limitations. Language Quality 1. The paper is generally well-written and clear in its presentation. I observed few complex and long sentences which is suggested simplifying complex sentences to improve papers quality. 2. A thorough proofreading for grammatical accuracy and consistency in terminology would enhance the paper's overall quality. Recommendation I recommend accepting this paper with minor revisions as outlined above. Reviewer #2: The “Literature Review” part should include more latest literatures. The “Methods” part is well-written. The methods are employed appropriately and able to meet the objectives of the study. The “Results” part is well-written. The conclusion adequately ties together the other elements of the paper. The study should include “Policy Implications”. ****** 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: AMIN UR RAHMAN Reviewer #2: Yes: Sayed Farrukh Ahmed ******** [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: Comments to Authors.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0310078.r001
Revision 1
18 Jun 2024 Author Response Response to Reviewers Dear Reviewer(s), Thank you very much for taking the time to carefully review and evaluate our manuscript. We will seriously consider your suggestions and incorporate them comprehensively when revising the manuscript, and we will make every effort to enhance the paper and ensure its academic merit. Once again, we sincerely appreciate your attention to our research and your valuable input. Abstract 1.Regarding the structure and alignment, the abstract would benefit from a more organized layout to enhance readability and coherence. My response: Thank you for your suggestion. We have seriously learned other abstracts of research articles published in PLOS ONE, and we agree with you that the abstract can benefit from a more organized layout. Therefore, we have adjusted the structure and alignment of the abstract. You can see changes in the “Abstract”. 2.Ensuring that each sentence flows logically into the next and that key points are clearly emphasized could improve the overall structure. My response: The overall structure are not changed, however we have emphasized the key points (the minutiae were deleted) and ensured that each sentence flows logically into the next. You can see changes in the “Abstract”. 3.Additionally, the abstract is somewhat lengthy and could be condensed to 200 words or less to maintain brevity while still effectively summarizing the study's objectives, methodology, findings, and implications. My response: We have noticed that the abstract is somewhat lengthy. In order to maintain brevity the contents of the abstract were condensed to less 200 words. However, the study’s objectives, methodology, findings, and implications were still effectively summarized. You can also see changes in the “Abstract”. 4.Finally, while the abstract is generally well-written, attention to minor language and grammar issues, such as awkward phrasing or punctuation errors, is recommended to enhance clarity and professionalism. Addressing these aspects would help strengthen the abstract and make it more impactful for readers. My response: Thank you for your high comments on my abstract and your careful proofreading. We are so sorry that there are still minor language and grammar issues, such as teachers’ (the correct is teachers’ and the whole paper were changed by teachers’, lines 35/36/39 and so on) and clarifies (the correct is clarified, line 33). In the following days, We will pay more attention to the language and grammar issues to enhance clarity and professionalism. Thanks. Introduction 1.The introduction is indeed well-written, providing a comprehensive overview of the research topic and its significance. However, there are a couple of areas where the authors could improve: 2.While the content is strong, attention to layout details such as spacing and alignment would enhance the presentation quality. Ensuring consistent formatting throughout the text will contribute to a polished appearance. My response: Thank you for your high comments on my introduction and your attentive proofreading. According to the submission guidelines of PLOS ONE, the manuscript text have been double-spaced, and the alignment have been left justified. The layout and spacing have met specifications and requirements of PLOS ONE. The consistent formatting throughout the paper become better than before. 3.The authors should review the reference style to align with the guidelines of PLOS ONE. Consistency in referencing style is crucial for professionalism and adherence to journal requirements. My response: We appreciate your attention to detail and we apologize for any errors or inaccuracies in the references list. We have carefully reviewed the references and made the necessary corrections to ensure accuracy. You can see changes in the “References”. 4.Although the introduction effectively identifies the gap in the literature, the specific research objectives could be articulated more clearly to guide readers on what to expect from the study. Clearly stating the research questions or hypotheses would provide readers with a roadmap for understanding the study's aims and contributions. My response: Thanks for your advice. In the last paragraph of the Introduction, we have mentioned the main aim (discussing the relationship between work values and professional development by analyzing the mediating factors, namely work engagement and perceived organizational support--the specific questions include: (1)Do primary and secondary school teachers’ work values affect teachers’ professional development？(2)What role do work engagement and perceived organizational support play in the realization of this relationship of influence.) and the contributions(contributing to existing literature on school culture and environment factors in the theoretical model of the professional development and devising policy makers about the importance of work environment and its impact on teachers' professional development and engagement, providing practical guidance to promote the professional development of teachers from primary and secondary school) of the study, which can be articulated to guide readers on what they expect from this study. In addition, the research questions and hypotheses have been provided in the next paragraph/part “Theories and Hypotheses”, the readers can also get them easily, because we marked them with “H1:/H2:/H3:” and provided a great deal of evidences. You can see the changes from lines 88 to 91. 5.While the conclusion of the introduction emphasizes the significance of the study, the authors could further elaborate on the unique contributions of the research and how it advances knowledge in the field. Providing a more detailed discussion of the potential theoretical and practical implications of the study's findings would enhance the clarity and impact of the introduction. My response: Thank you for your affirmation and encouragement to the conclusion of the introduction in this article. Under your suggestion we have further elaborated on the unique contributions of the research, including theoretical and practical significance (the added contents are as follows: The research of this study may not only deepen the understanding of exiting research on the relationship between work values and the professional development of primary and secondary school teachers, but also enrich the theoretical research foundation and extend the research field of professional development of teachers. Besides, understanding the mechanisms that contribute to professional development is crucial for developing targeted intervention strategies for primary and secondary school teachers in practice.). See the changes from lines 91 to 96. Just as you say, we are totally agree with you that providing a more detailed discussion of the potential theoretical and practical implications of the study’s findings would enhance the clarity and impact of the introduction. We have learned and got it. Literature Review 1.Ensure that the referencing style aligns with the guidelines of the target journal, such as PLOS ONE. Consistency in referencing style is crucial for maintaining professionalism and meeting journal requirements. My response: We appreciate your attention to detail and we apologize for any errors or inaccuracies in the references list. We have carefully reviewed the references and made the necessary corrections to ensure accuracy. Vancouver style is used in this paper. You can see the changes in the “References” from lines 527 to 691. 2.Incorporate more updated references to ensure the literature review reflects the most current research in the field. Including recent studies will enhance the relevance and credibility of the literature review. My response: We have added/incorporated the updated references to ensure the literature review reflects the most current research and enhance the relevance and credibility of the literature review in this field. You can see the changes in [7][10][12][26][28][29][35][40][42] [47], which have been marked with yellow color in the paper. 3.Clarify and separate the hypotheses related to the direct relationship between the independent variable (work values) and the mediator (work engagement), as well as the moderation effects of perceived organizational support. Presenting these hypotheses separately would improve clarity and facilitate understanding for the reader. My response: We have clarified and separated the three hypotheses: Hypothesis 1(H1): Work values can significantly positively predict the professional development of primary and secondary school teachers (see the lines 118 to 119). Hypothesis 2(H2): Work engagement plays an mediating role between work values and the professional development of primary and secondary school teachers (see the lines 147 to 148). Hypothesis 3(H3): Perceived organizational support not only moderates the direct prediction of work values of professional development, but also moderates the prediction of work values on work engagement (see the lines 176 to 178). Moreover, every hypothesis has a plenty of evidences for inference. 4.Provide a brief theoretical background before presenting the research model. This background should succinctly summarize relevant theoretical frameworks or concepts that support the study's hypotheses and research model. This addition will enhance the theoretical foundation of the study and provide context for the research model. My response: We have adopt your suggestion. we provide a brief theoretical background based on the Job Demands-Resources (JD-R) model and Social Exchange Theory (SET) before presenting the research model). You can see the changes from lines 179* to 187. We find that the new added contents can indeed enhance the theoretical foundation of this research and provide context for the research model. We will be able to use the same way (your suggestion) when we write similar research articles in the future. We have got it. Thanks again! Methodology 1.The methodology section appears to prioritize demographic details over discussing the actual study methodology. It is recommended to provide a brief discussion of the demographic characteristics within the text and present the detailed demographic information in a table for better readability and organization. My response: Yes, just as you see, in the methodology section we describe more about demographic details, and we have adopt your advice: in order to have a better readability and organization, we have deleted some information and provide a brief discussion of the demographic characteristics. In addition, we have also added some contents (see the lines 201 to 207) to discuss the actual study methodology. You can see the changes from lines 201 to 212. 2.The methodology does not address how data were collected from multiple provinces. If the data were collected online, it raises questions about the high response rate of 95.7%, which is unusually high for online surveys. Authors should provide justification for this high response rate to ensure the reliability and validity of the collected data. My response: We have added the information about how data were collected, and the added contents are as follow: the convenience sampling method was employed to select primary and secondary school teachers in Guangdong Province of China to complete the questionnaires online questionnaire platform Questionnaire Star (www.wjx.cn) from August 1 to October 30, 2023 (lines 201 to 207). The criteria for recruiting participants were primary and secondary school teachers who voluntarily wanted to participant should be recruited. The participants were informed of the anonymous submission of the questionnaires, study’s purpose, and confidentiality agreement. The participants could refuse or withdraw from the study anytime before submission. Just as you say, the data were collected online from questionnaire platform Questionnaire Star (www.wjx.cn), and the high response rate of 95.7%. There were some reasons as follow: First, We contacted the principals of primary and secondary schools where these teachers worked, and they all attached great importance to this matter and raised this matter at the school meeting, so that the teachers could actively cooperate. Second, we set up the questions in the questionnaire platform Questionnaire Star (www.wjx.cn) so that the participants could not submit if they did not compete all the questions. Third, The participants were informed of the anonymous submission of the questionnaires, study’s purpose, and confidentiality agreement. The participants could refuse or withdraw from the study anytime before submission, which gave them plenty of freedom and space. Last, we promised to give the results and conclusions of the this study back to the participants, and they were very careful to fill out the questionnaires. 3.The methodology discusses the measurement scales in detail. However, it would be more effective to consolidate this information into a single paragraph for clarity. Additionally, the discussion of reliability measures such as Cronbach's alpha and confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) should be moved to the results section, and the results should be presented in tabular format for easier reference. My response: Thank you for your suggestion. We have consolidated the relevant information of measurement scales into a single paragraph for clarity. In addition, in the results section, we have added the discussion of reliability measures such as Cronbach's alpha and confirmatory factor analysis (CFA), and the results have been presented in tabular format for easier reference. You can see the changes from lines 214 to 233 (or see the table 1 or lines 257 to 274). 4.As the authors is using control variables in the study also, I would suggest to provide brief detail about your control variables along with justification for using these variables as control. My response: We added a part called “Control variables” in the article, and we controlled for demographic characteristics variables that may impact work values, work engagement, perceived organizational support, and professional development of primary and secondary school teachers, including gender, age,education level and teaching age (lines 235 to 237). For all regression analyses, we entered gender, age,education level and teaching age as control variables. All continuous variables were centered to avoid multicollinearity (lines 242 to 244). 5.The track changes should be removed from the manuscript, particularly from lines 191 to 193, to ensure the document's professional presentation. My response: Yes, we have removed all the track changes form the manuscript to make sure the document’s professional presentation (lines 196 to 199). Results 1.The results section is commendably well-written and presented, demonstrating a strong presentation of findings. However, one aspect that requires attention is the discussion of scale reliability and validity. It is essential to include a detailed discussion of these aspects within the text of the results section, along with presenting the corresponding statistics in a table format. This will ensure a comprehensive evaluation of the measurement instruments used in the study and enhance the transparency of the findings. My response: Thank you for your feedback and encouragement. In the results section, we have added a part called “Reliability and validity analysis”, and its contents includes Cronbach's alpha and confirmatory factor analysis (CFA). The results have been presented in a table format (see the table 1 or lines 256 to 273) for easier reference. Just as you say, this will ensure a comprehensive evaluation of the measurement instruments used in the study and enhance the transparency of findings. We have learned and in the following days wewill do like this when meeting the similar situation. Thanks again. Discussion 2.The discussion is again well written however I would suggest, Provide a more thorough integration of current results with previous research on work values, work engagement, and organizational support in the context of teacher professional development. My response: Thank you for your feedback to the part of Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0310078.r002
26 Aug 2024 Decision Letter - Chunyu Zhang, Editor The impact of work values on the professional development of primary and secondary school teachers: A moderated mediation model PONE-D-24-02012R1 Dear Dr. Shi, 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 will be generated when your article is formally accepted. Please note, if your institution has a publishing partnership with PLOS and your article meets the relevant criteria, all or part of your publication costs will be covered. Please make sure your user information is up-to-date by logging into Editorial Manager at Editorial Manager® and clicking the ‘Update My Information' link at the top of the page. If you have any questions relating to publication charges, 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, Chunyu Zhang 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 #2: All comments have been addressed ******** 2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions? The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented. Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available? The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified. Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English? PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here. Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 6. Review Comments to the Author Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters) Reviewer #2: (No Response) ****** 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 #2: Yes: Sayed Farrukh Ahmed ******** https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0310078.r003
Formally Accepted
5 Sep 2024 Acceptance Letter - Chunyu Zhang, Editor PONE-D-24-02012R1 PLOS ONE Dear Dr. Shi, I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now being handed over to our production team. At this stage, our production department will prepare your paper for publication. This includes ensuring the following: * All references, tables, and figures are properly cited * All relevant supporting information is included in the manuscript submission, * There are no issues that prevent the paper from being properly typeset If revisions are needed, the production department will contact you directly to resolve them. If no revisions are needed, you will receive an email when the publication date has been set. At this time, we do not offer pre-publication proofs to authors during production of the accepted work. Please keep in mind that we are working through a large volume of accepted articles, so please give us a few weeks to review your paper and let you know the next and final steps. Lastly, 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. Chunyu Zhang Academic Editor PLOS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0310078.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 .