PONE-D-24-17396Adoption of AI Writing Tools among Academic Researchers: A Theory of Reasoned Action ApproachPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. A-lbukhrani,

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.

ACADEMIC EDITOR

After a thorough review, some concerns regarding the manuscript need to be addressed. Based on my assessment, the manuscript contains frequent grammatical errors, awkward phrasing, and some clarity issues that require attention. While the issues observed may not necessitate a complete overhaul, they do suggest that significant revisions are needed to enhance the overall quality of the manuscript. The primary concerns are related to fine-tuning rather than structural changes. For your reference, I have attached a document highlighting specific areas where improvements can be made. This includes detailed suggestions for improving grammar, phrasing, and clarity. I believe addressing these issues will greatly contribute to the manuscript’s readability and effectiveness.

Thank you for your attention to these matters. I look forward to seeing the revised version of the manuscript.

Best regards,

Please submit your revised manuscript by Oct 25 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,

Dokun Iwalewa OIuwajana

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. Please provide additional details regarding participant consent. In the ethics statement in the Methods and online submission information, please ensure that you have specified (1) whether consent was informed and (2) what type you obtained (for instance, written or verbal, and if verbal, how it was documented and witnessed). If your study included minors, state whether you obtained consent from parents or guardians. If the need for consent was waived by the ethics committee, please include this information. If you are reporting a retrospective study of medical records or archived samples, please ensure that you have discussed whether all data were fully anonymized before you accessed them and/or whether the IRB or ethics committee waived the requirement for informed consent. If patients provided informed written consent to have data from their medical records used in research, please include this information. 3. Please provide a complete Data Availability Statement in the submission form, ensuring you include all necessary access information or a reason for why you are unable to make your data freely accessible. If your research concerns only data provided within your submission, please write "All data are in the manuscript and/or supporting information files" as your Data Availability Statement.

Additional Editor Comments:

Dear authors, based on the frequent grammatical errors, awkward phrasing, and significant clarity issues in the manuscript, major revisions might be necessary. However, the overall assessment suggests that the issues are more related to fine-tuning rather than requiring a complete overhaul. Please see the attached document for specific suggestions on how to improve the manuscript. Thank you.

[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

**********

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

Reviewer #1: 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

**********

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

**********

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: I have conducted a comprehensive review of your paper and found it to have some merit. However, several key areas require further improvement before publication. I have summarized the necessary changes, hoping that the feedback will be valuable to you as you revise the paper. I cannot consider your manuscript for publication now, but I encourage you to consider the feedback and resubmit your revised manuscript.

Introduction

- The introduction relies heavily on the perceived hype around AI tools without providing sufficient empirical evidence to support the claims. Including more concrete examples and data on the current adoption rates of AI tools would be beneficial. Additionally, while the introduction mentions a research gap, it does not delineate which aspects of AI writing tool adoption are under-researched. Clarifying this would help establish the study's significance more robustly. Importantly, a more focused purpose statement would provide clearer direction for the research and its contributions.

Literature Review and Hypotheses Development

The review of emerging AI writing technologies is quite general. It would benefit from a deeper exploration of specific tools, their functionalities, and their impact on scholarly work.

The literature review presents various studies and models but lacks a critical analysis of their strengths and limitations. A more nuanced discussion would provide a better foundation for the study. Additionally, while the Theory of Reasoned Action (TRA) is explained, the justification for choosing this model over others like TAM or UTAUT is not compelling. Providing a stronger rationale based on the unique aspects of AI tool adoption in academia would strengthen this section. The explanation of TRA is quite general, and more specific examples of how TRA has been successfully applied in similar contexts would be helpful. The discussion of other models (TAM, UTAUT) is brief and does not delve into their specific components and how they compare to TRA. There is no critical comparison of the different models to highlight why TRA was chosen. Discussing the relative strengths and weaknesses of each model would add value. Some hypotheses are broad and could benefit from more specificity. For instance, instead of "Perceived barriers negatively influence researchers' attitudes," specifying which barriers (technical, ethical, etc.) would provide more clarity. The hypotheses are stated without sufficiently linking them back to the theoretical constructs of TRA, and stronger theoretical underpinning would make the hypotheses more compelling.

Methodology

The explanation of purposive sampling is somewhat vague. Providing more details on the criteria for selecting participants would enhance understanding. Although the sample size determination is mentioned, the rationale for the chosen effect size and power level is not thoroughly explained. Providing more context would clarify why these thresholds were selected. The methods of participant recruitment are briefly mentioned but lack detail. For instance, how were the email addresses obtained, and what specific strategies were used to ensure a diverse and representative sample? The process of adapting existing scales is mentioned, but more detail on the specific modifications made would be helpful. This includes providing examples of adapted items. Also, since this is a self-reported questionnaire, how did you establish if there is social desirability bias in the data collected?

- Articulate recommendations for practitioners to enhance the application of the research.

A section should be included to discuss limitations and future work.

**********

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: Musa Adekunle Ayanwale

**********

[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: Responses to the Manuscript from the academic edit.docx

Adoption of AI Writing Tools among Academic Researchers: A Theory of Reasoned Action Approach

PONE-D-24-17396R1

Dear Dr. Mohammmed A-lbukhrani,

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,

Dokun Iwalewa OIuwajana

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: (No Response)

**********

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)

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

**********

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: (No Response)

**********

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: (No Response)

**********

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: The revisions you have made have significantly improved the clarity and depth of the manuscript. I appreciate the thoughtful responses provided and the comprehensive improvements across the grey areas identified earlier. Thank you.

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 #1: Yes: Musa Adekunle Ayanwale

Reviewer #2: No

**********