PONE-D-24-17358Student perceptions of conflict reducing practices in evolution education are associated with increases in their evolution acceptance in a large naturalistic studyPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Barnes,

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.

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

Below, I have outlined the revisions needed:

Table and Figures:

1. Table 1: The heading "Acceptance of evolution" may be misleading, as the percentages might not reflect this concept accurately.
2. Figures 3 and 5:
   • Clarify the categories as "more than 1 SD above/below the mean" and use labels like "≤ -1 SD" or "≥ +1 SD" for clarity.
   • Resolve the inconsistency regarding the description of "students affiliated with no religion" by rephrasing the caption.
   • Define what "mean" represents in the context of these figures to avoid confusion.
   • Explain what the shaded areas in the plots signify, possibly the 95% CI for the linear model.
3. Figure 4: Correct the dashed horizontal line, which should represent the "overall mean within all samples," and fix a copy-paste error in the R code.

Abstract:

1. Add the background of the study at the beginning.
2. Include a statement about the potential transformative impact of the research on evolution education.
3. Specify the implications of the findings for evolution education practices.

Introduction:

1. Clearly state the research questions and objectives in a dedicated paragraph.
2. Include a brief discussion of the theoretical framework, particularly cultural competence in science education.

Methods:

1. Improve the clarity of the statistical analysis plan by using subheadings and explaining the rationale for each control variable.
2. Address how the sampling methods ensure the representativeness of the sample and discuss the adequacy of the 44% response rate.

Results:

1. Use subheadings to separate results for each research question or hypothesis.
2. Include effect sizes along with p-values to provide a sense of the magnitude of observed effects.
3. Briefly mention the statistical methods used beneath the figures and tables.

Discussion:

1. Add more depth to the discussion section, particularly in interpreting the results.
2. Address limitations more explicitly, especially the sample size for non-Christian religious groups.
3. Expand the discussion on why religious role models were effective only for Christian students, considering cultural and contextual factors.
4. Discuss the potential long-term effects of the conflict-reducing practices and their relevance to the field.
5. Consider adding a section on ethical considerations, including informed consent.

Title and Tone:

1. Shorten the title to make it more concise.
2. Add an introductory sentence in the abstract to address the research problem.
3. Minimize the use of first-person pronouns to enhance the academic tone.
4. Clarify the findings presented in the abstract to reflect all data sets collected.

General Suggestions:

1. Ensure that the discussion includes more in-depth analysis of the findings rather than being dominated by comparisons with previous studies.
2. Consider reorganizing the methodology section for better flow, particularly regarding the construct validation paragraph.

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

Please submit your revised manuscript by Oct 06 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,

Mc Rollyn Daquiado Vallespin

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 financial disclosure: 

"NSF Grant number 1818659"

Please state what role the funders took in the study.  If the funders had no role, please state: "The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript." 

If this statement is not correct you must amend it as needed. 

Please include this amended Role of Funder statement in your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf.

3. Please expand the acronym “NSF” (as indicated in your financial disclosure) so that it states the name of your funders in full.

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

4. Thank you for stating the following in the Acknowledgments Section of your manuscript: 

"We would like to acknowledge the instructors of biology courses willing to implement our survey and the thousands of students who were willing to complete the survey. This project was supported by the NSF Grant number 1818659."

We note that you have provided funding information that is not currently declared in your Funding Statement. However, funding information should not appear in the Acknowledgments section or other areas of your manuscript. We will only publish funding information present in the Funding Statement section of the online submission form. 

Please remove any funding-related text from the manuscript and let us know how you would like to update your Funding Statement. Currently, your Funding Statement reads as follows: 

"NSF Grant number 1818659"

Please include your amended statements within your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf.

5. Please include captions for your Supporting Information files at the end of your manuscript, and update any in-text citations to match accordingly. Please see our Supporting Information guidelines for more information: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/supporting-information. 

[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

**********

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

Reviewer #1: I Don't Know

Reviewer #2: I Don't Know

Reviewer #3: 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

**********

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

**********

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: This is a well-written, timely, and thoughtful research paper. The methodology, subject selection, and survey development all seem to be excellent.

There are a few small errors/inconsistencies that I happened to notice which should be corrected-- and I would ask that the authors please double-check all of the statistical analyses to ensure there aren't any additional errors. My concern is that a few sloppy (but minor) errors might indicate that something else has been overlooked.

Specific things that I happened to notice:

** In Table 1, there is a heading that says "Acceptance of evolution" which doesn't seem correct - I don't think those percentages indicate "acceptance of evolution."

** Figures 3 and 5 are not described completely or correctly. For instance:

- I think the categories should be described as "more that 1 SD above the mean" or "more than 1 SD below" instead of "1 SD above" or "1 SD below"? In the figure legend perhaps it would be clearer with a label like "≤ -1 SD" or "≥ +1 SD" ?

- The caption says "The red lines are students affiliated with no religion and have religiosity measures 1 SD below the mean." but in the text it states "students affiliated with no religion" in fact "may have checked the box for “Christian”, “Muslim”, “Jewish”, etc, we considered them non-religious because they did not believe this was a relevant or important part of their identities" So there seems to be some inconsistency there. Perhaps it would be better to state "The red lines are students with religiosity measures more than 1 SD below the mean, which we have coded as having no religious affiliation."

- Do the dashed lines that say "mean" represent the mean of the entire population of individuals coded in the specific subgroups (i.e. the mean of all students who identified as "Christian" or as "Other-Religion")? There are several uses of the term "mean" in the figure and caption and I can't always tell what is meant in each case.

- I couldn't find any description of what the shaded areas on these plots signifies— is it 95% CI for the linear model?

** In Figure 4 the dashed horizontal line should represent the "overall mean within all samples" but that obviously can't be correct. I found a simple copy-paste error in the R code (thank you SO MUCH for sharing your code! excellent.) - in line 379 in the file on GitHub it plots "course_stats_rsrm$mean" but should be plotting "course_stats_aut$mean"

I haven't tried to re-run the R code myself or repeat any of the analyses, but I would ask that the authors, in preparing a re-submission to correct these small points, please also ensure that there aren't other errors that I might not have noticed in my review of the manuscript. I think that the statistical analyses are appropriate and correct, but the small concerns identified above make me hesitant to give it my full confidence.

The discussion and survey of prior work in this area are thorough, and well-written. Excellent work!

Reviewer #2: Dear Editor,

Rahmi et al. have conducted a significant study on Student perceptions of conflict-reducing practices in evolution education. Their research, which is associated with increases in evolution acceptance, is a unique and valuable contribution to the field. With some major revisions, this study has the potential to become an even stronger piece of research.

Abstract:

The abstract provides a clear overview of the study's purpose, methods, and key findings. However, there are a few areas that could be improved.

1. Add the background of the study at the beginning of the abstract.

2. Consider adding a brief statement about the potential transformative impact of this research in the broader context of evolution education. This could inspire further research and innovation in the field.

3. The conclusion could be more specific about the implications of these findings for evolution education practices.

Introduction

1. The research questions are the backbone of the study and could be more clearly stated. Consider adding a paragraph that explicitly outlines the study's objectives and hypotheses, emphasizing their importance to the research process.

2. The introduction could benefit from a brief discussion of the theoretical framework guiding this research, particularly regarding the concept of cultural competence in science education.

Material methods

The statistical analysis plan is appropriate, but it could be more clearly presented. Consider using subheadings to separate the different analyses performed and provide a brief rationale for the inclusion of each control variable.

Results

The results are presented clearly and correspond well to the research questions. However, there are a few suggestions for improvement:

1. Consider using subheadings to separate the results for each research question or hypothesis.

2. It would be helpful to include effect sizes along with p-values to give readers a better sense of the magnitude of the observed effects.

3. Briefly mention the statistical methods used to derive key figures and results beneath the figures and tables.

Discussion

1. The discussion section provides a general interpretation of the results. While it lacks depth in explanation, it is evident that a significant amount of effort has been put into this section.

2. The analysis of differential effects across religious affiliations is somewhat limited by sample size for non-Christian religious groups. This limitation, along with others, could be addressed more explicitly in the limitations section, providing a more comprehensive understanding of the research's scope and potential areas for future investigation.

3. The discussion of why religious role models were only effective for Christian students could be expanded, perhaps considering cultural and contextual factors more deeply.

4. The potential long-term effects of these conflict-reducing practices are not addressed. A more detailed discussion of whether these changes in evolution acceptance persist over time would be valuable, as it would highlight the potential implications of the research and its relevance to the field.

5. Consider adding a brief section on ethical considerations, including how informed consent was obtained from participants.

Regards,

Reviewer #3: Title:

Your title is too long. It would be better if it could be shortened.

Abstract:

Please add an introductory sentence at the beginning of the abstract that addresses the research problem you are investigating.

You have used first-person pronouns excessively. To enhance the academic tone of the manuscript, minimize the use of first-person pronouns.

Based on the second and third sentences, it appears that you collected at least three sets of data. However, the fourth sentence only presents one finding.

Introduction:

The introduction is well-structured with a clear flow, allowing readers to follow the developed framework and the issues being reported effectively.

Although brief, the state-of-the-art and research gap related to the study’s topic are addressed in the fourth paragraph.

Methods:

The research methods are presented comprehensively, with sufficient detail and clarity, allowing readers to fully understand the design and steps of the study, from instrument development to the analysis of findings.

One minor suggestion for making the methodology section more systematic is to place the paragraph on construct validation for the survey instrument measuring Conflict Reducing Practices in Evolution Education (predictor variable) after the paragraph on expert and student reviews and before the paragraph on class observation.

You used convenience and snowball sampling methods. How did you ensure that the sample is representative of the population?

Is a 44% response rate considered adequate?

Results:

The research findings are presented in a complete and systematic manner.

Discussion:

While the discussion addresses the findings, it lacks depth and breadth. The discussion is currently dominated by comparisons between your findings and those of previous studies, as well as suggestions for future research based on unanswered questions. These two components should not be reduced in the revised manuscript, but you should add more in-depth discussion of the findings you have obtained.

**********

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

Reviewer #3: Yes: Ahmad Fauzi

**********

[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.

Conflict reducing practices in evolution education are associated with increases in evolution acceptance in a large naturalistic study

PONE-D-24-17358R1

Dear Dr. BARNES,

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,

Mc Rollyn Daquiado Vallespin

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments: