PONE-D-24-51475-->-->A need or a luxury? A study of parents’ attitudes towards choosing international schools for their children from a linguistic perspective-->-->PLOS ONE?>

Dear Dr. Almulhim,

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 18 2025 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.. 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.. 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.. 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.

• 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 . 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 . 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 . 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,

Anandhan Hariharasudan, PhD

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. Please provide additional details regarding participant consent. In the ethics statement in the Methods and online submission information, please ensure that you have specified 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.

3. In the online submission form, you indicated that the questionnaire responses are available upon request.

All PLOS journals now require all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript to be freely available to other researchers, either 1. In a public repository, 2. Within the manuscript itself, or 3. 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. 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.

Additional Editor Comments :

The supporting documents are missing in this submission.

The paper cannot be considered for review until it submitted with all required files (Questionnaire, Data set, etc.).

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

[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 . 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 . 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 . 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.. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

PONE-D-24-51475R1-->-->A need or a luxury? A study of parents’ attitudes towards choosing international schools for their children from a linguistic perspective-->-->PLOS ONE?>

Dear Dr. Almulhim,

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 Nov 29 2025 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.. 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.. 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.. 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.

• 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 . 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 . 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 . 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,

Anandhan Hariharasudan, PhD

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

If the reviewer comments include a recommendation to cite specific previously published works, please review and evaluate these publications to determine whether they are relevant and should be cited. There is no requirement to cite these works unless the editor has indicated otherwise.

Additional Editor Comments (if provided):

The manuscript presents a relevant and potentially valuable topic; however, it requires substantial revision to meet publication standards. The research questions lack depth and insight, and the study’s novelty and distinction from existing literature are not clearly articulated. The literature review does not sufficiently justify or support the identified research gap, and several sections suffer from semantic redundancy due to repetitive phrasing. The conclusion reads more like a list than a cohesive synthesis, lacking logical connections between ideas. The sample size is too limited to generalize the findings, and methodological details—including sampling regions, inclusion criteria, data collection process, and survey validation—are inadequately described. The absence of the questionnaire in the appendix further weakens the study’s transparency. Moreover, the discussion does not critically engage with the findings, omits study limitations, and fails to offer practical implications or future research directions. The writing requires major language refinement to improve clarity, grammatical consistency, and coherence, with particular attention to verb tenses, pronoun references, and sentence transitions. The introduction and certain subsections need to be more concise, incorporating recent developments such as the growing influence of social media on education in Saudi Arabia. Overall, the paper must undergo major revision to enhance its theoretical contribution, methodological rigor, linguistic quality, and overall scholarly value.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions??>

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

Reviewer #2: Partly

**********

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

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

Reviewer #2: No

**********

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.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 Response)

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English??>

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

**********

Reviewer #1: 1. The abstract of the paper is written well.

2. The statistical analysis and the illustrations are adequately done.

3. However, research questions framed are not so insightful.

4. The study's novelty is not mentioned. How does the study differ from the existing one?

5. The literature review section does not say anything in support of the research gap identified and addressed.

6. Semantic redundancy is created by the repetitive use of certain phrases "global perspectives," "interconnected world," "multicultural society," "cultural exchange" "Significant role" and "pivotal role." This needs to be addressed by the researchers.

7. The concluding statement of the paper says --- “global communication, preparation for higher education, enhanced career opportunities, the facilitation of mobility and cultural exchange” — provide a significant advantage for English as a medium of instruction. It reads more like a bullet point list than an integrated sentence. The logical links between English and each of these points are asserted but not explained.

8. The sample of the study was very small (quantitative and qualitative data through a 30-item questionnaire to which 76 parents responded) and the authors try to claim to address the needs of the students of Saudi Arabia.

9. Instead of providing one-side view, the authors can acknowledge challenges and try to provide possible ways to resolve it.

10. The authors can avoid using vague transitions in sentences. Try to use bridging sentences.

11. The authors ought to eliminate generalized claims and think of adding specific examples.

12. The authors need to remove the unsubstantiated references found in support of their argument. Proper citation is the way out.

13. The Questionnaire used during the pre-study period was not provided in the appendix.

14. The standard of English needs to be improved.

15. Grammatical Errors need to be addressed:

Verb Tense Consistency:

• “Another major reason for enrolling children in international schools is if they were born or raised abroad…”

→ “is if they were” → awkward and inconsistent; consider parallel tense.

Incorrect or vague pronoun reference:

• “These are important for the future of the children.”

→ “These” refers to “quality of the curricula and the environment” but is too vague here.

Lack of Clarity in the Final Sentence found in the Discussion:

• “This could affect their perceived status and prestige, as well as the credibility of their educational outcomes.”

→ Ambiguous: whose perceived status — the schools or the students?

16. Scope for further is research is not given.

17. Hence it is perceived that the study lacks many important and crucial elements in support of the claims made by the authors.

18. Therefore, the paper needs to be sent for major revision.

19. The following article can be cited in the revised manuscript as there are some relevant ideas in support main argument of the research paper in the section: 2.3 Impact on Human Skills and Education:

Asokan Vasudevan, K. T. Tamilmani, Suleiman Ibrahim Mohammad, V. S. Sridheepika, N. Raja, Eddie Eu Hui Soon, Sriganeshvarun Nagaraj, and Ahmad Samed Al-Adwan. (2025). Voices of Concern: Contemplations on Socioeconomic, Ethical, and Developmental Impacts of AI. Applied Mathematics and Information Sciences: An International Journal, 19 No.1, 221-232. ISSN 2325-0399 (online) https://www.naturalspublishing.com/Article.asp?ArtcID=29328

Reviewer #2: - The topic is interesting, but the study itself does not add much to the reader’s knowledge and does not provide future directions to make the results valuable

-Language used in the article should be revised for better choice of words and punctuation. -The title implies more outcomes than the paper provides.

Introduction:

The introduction provides valuable information to help readers understand the educational system in Saudi Arabia; however, it would be more helpful if it were more concise.

The studies on “Saudi Arabians’ attitudes towards English” are outdated and may not accurately reflect the current status in Saudi Arabia, given the significant changes in the country and the shift toward extensive social media use over the last few years. This change should be reflected as well, and might add a great understanding to the topic

2.4. Classrooms: It would be helpful to provide the reader with the actual number of students in public vs private schools in Saudi Arabia to be able to decide on the difference and to understand if the class size is appropriate or not. In addition, whether this trend of choosing private schools over public ones has increased over time. Again, it would help the reader to have this part written in a summarized, concise way instead of mentioning different studies with different results

Sample: Which regions of Saudi Arabia were included in the study? What were the inclusion and exclusion criteria? The specific results on the sample should be added under

the results section.

Data collection:

The data collection section should be revised to provide a clear description of the process. It is mentioned that “The questionnaire was then distributed to various individuals at universities and other educational institutions. We also asked the participants to distribute it to others through a snowballing process to enhance the quality of the study.” Why were individuals at universities directly targeted, and wouldn't this create bias? And what is meant by educational institutions? Do you mean schools?

This section has information regarding developing the survey. It is recommended to separate the information into another section. Regarding the survey, it needs to be described more straightforwardly; it is not clear what the survey questions were. Perhaps it would be helpful to include them. More importantly, the survey’s validity was not mentioned, and no piloting was done.

Findings:

This section is difficult to follow; it would benefit from being more focused to aid the reader's understanding.

In sections 4.1 and 4.2, the percentages of parents providing information are not included, which does not accurately represent the value of the results.

Discussion:

The results of this study are not surprising and may not add to our knowledge unless the authors apply their results to our reality. For example, you use the results to provide suggestions to improve the educational system.

Limitations of the study are not mentioned

**********

what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.). 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 For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy..-->

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

**********

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at . 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 . 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 . 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.. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

PONE-D-24-51475R2-->-->A need or a luxury? Parents’ attitudes towards international schools from a linguistic perspective-->-->PLOS One?>

Dear Dr. Almulhim,

The manuscript requires minor revision to improve clarity and methodological consistency. The abstract should clearly state the mixed-methods design, include key numerical results, and specify both quantitative and qualitative procedures. The literature review needs updating with recent studies to enhance relevance. The methodology section should correct demographic details, clearly explain the qualitative component, and separately report demographic and Likert-scale items. While quantitative findings are well presented, qualitative results are missing and should be reported with thematic analysis and aligned to the research questions. The discussion and conclusion should be revised to explicitly justify each research question based on the study’s findings.to improve clarity and methodological consistency. The abstract should clearly state the mixed-methods design, include key numerical results, and specify both quantitative and qualitative procedures. The literature review needs updating with recent studies to enhance relevance. The methodology section should correct demographic details, clearly explain the qualitative component, and separately report demographic and Likert-scale items. While quantitative findings are well presented, qualitative results are missing and should be reported with thematic analysis and aligned to the research questions. The discussion and conclusion should be revised to explicitly justify each research question based on the study’s findings.to improve clarity and methodological consistency. The abstract should clearly state the mixed-methods design, include key numerical results, and specify both quantitative and qualitative procedures. The literature review needs updating with recent studies to enhance relevance. The methodology section should correct demographic details, clearly explain the qualitative component, and separately report demographic and Likert-scale items. While quantitative findings are well presented, qualitative results are missing and should be reported with thematic analysis and aligned to the research questions. The discussion and conclusion should be revised to explicitly justify each research question based on the study’s findings.to improve clarity and methodological consistency. The abstract should clearly state the mixed-methods design, include key numerical results, and specify both quantitative and qualitative procedures. The literature review needs updating with recent studies to enhance relevance. The methodology section should correct demographic details, clearly explain the qualitative component, and separately report demographic and Likert-scale items. While quantitative findings are well presented, qualitative results are missing and should be reported with thematic analysis and aligned to the research questions. The discussion and conclusion should be revised to explicitly justify each research question based on the study’s findings.

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.. 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.-->-->--></article>-->

• A 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 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 . 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 . 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 . 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,

Anandhan Hariharasudan, PhD

Academic Editor

PLOS One

Journal Requirements:

If the reviewer comments include a recommendation to cite specific previously published works, please review and evaluate these publications to determine whether they are relevant and should be cited. There is no requirement to cite these works unless the editor has indicated otherwise.

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.

Additional Editor Comments (if provided):

The manuscript requires minor revision to improve clarity and methodological consistency. The abstract should clearly state the mixed-methods design, include key numerical results, and specify both quantitative and qualitative procedures. The literature review needs updating with recent studies to enhance relevance. The methodology section should correct demographic details, clearly explain the qualitative component, and separately report demographic and Likert-scale items. While quantitative findings are well presented, qualitative results are missing and should be reported with thematic analysis and aligned to the research questions. The discussion and conclusion should be revised to explicitly justify each research question based on the study’s findings.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #3: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions??>

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #3: 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.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 #3: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English??>

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

Reviewer #1: The authors have made substantial revision of the paper. They have mentioned the novelty and the contribution of the paper clearly.

Reviewer #3: In abstract, a mixed-methods research design was employed; however, this is not explicitly mentioned within the abstract. Additionally, numerical values should be incorporated to substantiate the study’s findings. In addition, a survey for quantitative data collection is mentioned, the procedures for qualitative data collection are not specified.

The literature review is clearly articulated and supported by adequate references; however, recent studies (2025, 2024, 2023, 2022) should be incorporated to strengthen the relevance.

In the methodology section, the demographic details should be corrected as 52 male respondents (68.4%) and 24 female respondents (31.6%). Furthermore, no explanation is provided regarding the qualitative component of the study, which weakens the mixed-methods research method. Furthermore, mention number of demographic details and likert scale questions separately.

In the findings section, the quantitative results are clearly presented and interpreted. However, the qualitative findings are not addressed. It is recommended that qualitative results be presented under a separate subheading with proper thematic analysis. Correlate the likert scale questions and open ended questions to the research questions with proper justification.

In the discussion and conclusion sections, the research questions are not sufficiently justified in relation to the findings. These sections should be revised and justified to each research question.

**********

what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.). 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 For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy..-->

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #3: 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.]

To ensure your figures meet our technical requirements, please review our figure guidelines: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/figures

You may also use PLOS’s free figure tool, NAAS, to help you prepare publication quality figures: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/figures#loc-tools-for-figure-preparation.

NAAS will assess whether your figures meet our technical requirements by comparing each figure against our figure specifications.

A need or a luxury? Parents’ attitudes towards international schools from a linguistic perspective

PONE-D-24-51475R3

Dear Dr. Almulhim,

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. For questions related to billing, please contact  and clicking the ‘Update My Information' link at the top of the page. For questions related to billing, please contact  and clicking the ‘Update My Information' link at the top of the page. For questions related to billing, please contact  and clicking the ‘Update My Information' link at the top of the page. For questions related to billing, please contact billing support....

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,

Anandhan Hariharasudan, PhD

Academic Editor

PLOS One

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

The paper has been revised and improved significantly.

It can be considered for publication.

All the best.

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #3: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions??>

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #3: 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.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 #3: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English??>

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

Reviewer #1: The authors have given proper citation for the references. The Questionnaire used during the pre-study period was provided in the appendix. The standard of English has been improved substantially. Scope for further is research is given. Now the article in the present form has reached the level of publishable article.

Reviewer #3: (No Response)

**********

what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.). 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 For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy..-->

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #3: Yes:Saranraj LoganathanSaranraj LoganathanSaranraj LoganathanSaranraj Loganathan

**********