Time efficiency as a mediator between institutional support and higher education student engagement during e-learning

Tarik Abdulkrem Alwerthan

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0315420

Peer Review History

Original SubmissionJune 17, 2024
17 Sep 2024 Decision Letter - Hosam Al-Samarraie, Editor PONE-D-24-21575Time Efficiency as a Mediator Between Institutional Support and Higher Education Student Engagement During E-LearningPLOS ONE Dear Dr. Alwerthan, 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 01 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, Hosam Al-Samarraie Academic Editor PLOS ONE Journal Requirements: plos.org/plosone/s/file%3fid=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf%20and">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: “The researcher would like to acknowledge Deanship of Graduate Studies and Scientific Research, Taif University for funding this work.” 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. In the online submission form, you indicated that “The data presented in this study are available on request from the author.” 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 a separate caption for each figure in your manuscript. [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: Partly Reviewer #2: Yes ******** 2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: I Don't Know ****** 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 ****** 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: No 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: Review Comments Time Efficiency as a Mediator between Institutional Support and Higher Education Student Engagement During E-Learning Thank you for the opportunity to review this manuscript. The subject matter is important for the field of discipline. I have however, indicated some areas that need to be improved to enhance the study. Abstract: - The first sentence is too long making it difficult to connect with the proposed linkages among the variable factors. - “This study employed a cross-section research design” is fine. Consider deleting questionnaire-based. Introduction - Lines 3-4: e-learning has existed over several decades. The researcher’s attempt to link it with the “many radical changes in the past five years as a result of technological development and globalization of knowledge” makes it non- factual. - Line 7: establish a good linkage between this sentence and the previous one to aid cohesion and comprehension. Since “Though programs …” seem to be completely out of place. - Line 12: first time mention of UNESCP should be in full and subsequently abbreviated version can be used. Moreover, is the UNESCP education similar to eLearning? - Paragraph 2, kindly check and correct grammar in the sentence one in order to make the meaning much clearer. - the gap in knowledge that the study is seeking to address is not clear. Authors must make the gap clear and indicate why it is important for this research to address it. Literature Review Line 1: revise as follows: “ the concept of time-efficiency has been studied across various fields” such as … indicate the examples of the various fields you are referring to. - the justification for the mediating role of time-efficiency is lacking. - The abbreviation of Engagement theory (ET) in the sub-heading should be in bracket. - Generally, the manuscript requires major proof-reading and editing to correct certain errors seen in the work. Attention should be paid to proper punctuation, very long paragraphs, long sentences (pg.8) repetition of certain phrases eg. Authority figures, etc - The justification for the use of engagement theory is missing from the discussion. It will do the manuscript a great deal of good if authors consider this suggestion. The theory was hardly discussed except the first sentence in the last paragraph on pg. 6. - There is lack of linkages between the various paragraphs making the manuscript lack coherence. - The first use of SDT should be in full. - The literature review should be able to provide a critical review of existing researches. Going this route could minimize the many citations considerably. - The generation of the research gap justifying the stated hypotheses is still missing. correct to Study hypotheses - H1 -3: There was no discussion on the three forms of time-efficiency in the LR. Authors may consider addressing this since that will provide the bases for their presence in the study. - Moreover, what is the relevance of “Figure 1, 2, 3” ending the hypothetical statements? If it is for reference purposes, the consider placing them in a bracket. For example, (see Figure 1) Methods - Methodology should be revised considerably to reflect the style of a manuscript. - Was there an estimated population, and sample size? What sampling technique (s) was/were used? - Consider including the source of the instrument used to measure student support. Results - How was the non-normal nature of the data treated? - The write-up on “Data Analysis” appears overly long. It should be revised to reflect the style of a manuscript. Path coefficients - Did the study control for some variables? If so kindly indicate them. - The results need to be reorganized in such a way that clearly depicts what is demonstrated in the tables. As at now the authors make reference to results that is non-existent in tables. For example, Lines 1 – 4, authors make reference to a substantial and highly significant positive impact on student engagement with path coefficient of 0.693 and a p-value of 0.00 in table 4. However, there is no such results in table 4. The study will benefit from a thorough review of the results. Discussion The discussion should be revised to suit the style of a manuscript. References - Generally, the references are too many and a careful revision of the entire manuscript could reduce it considerably. - In-text citation and references could benefit from a thorough revision to conform with the journal’s standard. For example, pgs. 5, 6,7,8 and many more throughout the study. Reviewer #2: The study makes significant contributions to the understanding of time-efficiency in e-learning environments, specifically within the context of Saudi Arabia. The author has effectively addressed a gap in the literature, offering well-supported arguments that answer the research questions. Strengths: - The study is well-grounded in theoretical frameworks providing a solid conceptual basis. - The use of a large sample across multiple Saudi universities enhances the study's credibility. - Visual data representations are clear and facilitate a better understanding of the relationships between variables. - The writing is clear, concise, and well-structured, making the study accessible to readers. Recommendations: - Provide more clarity in defining types of student support considered in the study. - Expand on the Saudi Arabian context in relation to e-learning. This will help frame the study's findings more effectively for an international audience. - Offer specific examples of the obstacles students faced during e-learning (Page 3, Paragraph 2). - The first two sentences discussing time-efficiency on Page 5, Paragraph 1 lack citations. - At the end of each section in the literature review, consider summarising how this study fills the identified gaps. - Include a table summarising demographics details of the participants (e.g., age, university year). - Provide a more detailed explanation of why short-term planning was found to be less significant. - Since SDT and ET are not frequently mentioned in the study, the use of abbreviations might be confusing. Minor Corrections: - Avoid repeating the author's name twice in the same sentence. For example, instead of "Adams and Blair (Adams & Blair, 2019a)," cite the authors once. - Correct the misspelling of UNESCO on Page 3, Paragraph 1, and ensure the inclusion of a citation. - There are doubled parentheses on Page 5 and Page 21. - Replace the ampersand (&) used in citations with "and," and avoid overusing "e.g." before citations to maintain the academic style. ****** 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: Yes: Eshrag Aljehani ******** [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. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0315420.r001
Revision 1
22 Oct 2024 Author Response Dear Editor and Reviewers, We sincerely appreciate your insightful and constructive feedback on our manuscript. We have carefully incorporated your comments and made significant revisions to improve the clarity, organization, and overall quality of the paper. In addition, the manuscript has been reorganized, and corrections were made to address certain language issues. We are grateful for your efforts in strengthening this manuscript. Below, we detail how we have addressed your concerns. Editor We have included the appropriate statement regarding the funder's role in the cover letter. Additionally, we have submitted the data as a supplementary file. Reviewer 1 Abstract We updated the first sentence for clarity and removed the term "questionnaire-based" as advised. Introduction We updated the statement regarding e-learning to better reflect its historical context and recent advances. We increased sentence linking to enhance cohesiveness and comprehension. We spelled out "UNESCO" in full at the first mention. We clarified the grammar of the second paragraph and clearly stated the gap in knowledge as a closing paragraph of the literature review. Literature Review We modified the opening statement to include examples of fields where time efficiency has been explored. We presented an enhanced argument for time efficiency's mediating role. We updated the abbreviation format for Engagement Theory and eliminated the use of the acronym. We proofread and edited the manuscript, correcting punctuation, paragraph length, and redundancy. We expanded the concept of Engagement Theory to better support its application in our study and adjusted paragraph linkages to improve coherence. We defined Self-Determination Theory (SDT) in full and eliminated the acronym's usage. We revisited the literature review and reduced unnecessary citations, highlighting the research gap that supports our hypotheses. Hypotheses We changed the heading to "Study Hypotheses" and included a discussion of the three types of time efficiency in the Literature Review for context. We updated the format of figure references to "(see Figure)". Methods We updated the methodology section to better align with the style of a manuscript. We included details about the estimated population, sample size, and sampling method used, as well as the source of the instrument to assess student support. Non-normal Nature of Data We expanded the Data Analysis section to address how we treated the non-normal nature of our data and explained our shift from covariance-based SEM to Partial Least Squares SEM (PLS-SEM). Data Analysis Write-up We substantially revised and condensed the Data Analysis section to better match the manuscript's style, focusing on key methodological decisions and their rationale. Control Variables We added information about the control variables used, specifically noting that we included "Gender" and "Specialization" and reported their effects on student engagement. Results Reorganization We thoroughly revised the Results section to ensure clear alignment between the text and the tables, correcting discrepancies, such as the one you pointed out regarding the path coefficient and p-value for the relationship between long-term planning and student engagement. Discussion Revision We revised the Discussion section to better interpret our findings within the context of existing literature and theoretical frameworks. References We reduced the number of references and edited the in-text citations and reference list to meet the journal's standards. Reviewer 2 Short-term Planning Significance We expanded our discussion on the significance of short-term planning, providing explanations for its limited impact in our study and suggesting areas for future research in e-learning contexts. Contextual and Support Definitions We provided specific definitions for the types of student support evaluated in our study. We elaborated on the Saudi Arabian context of e-learning to better explain our findings, including examples of challenges students faced. We added citations to support the discussion on time efficiency and included a paragraph at the end of the literature review to demonstrate how our study fills identified gaps. We also added a table summarizing participants' demographics and offered a detailed explanation for the reduced significance of short-term planning in our findings. Abbreviations We spelled out Self-Determination Theory (SDT) and Engagement Theory (ET) and used their full terms consistently throughout the manuscript. We believe these revisions have significantly improved the clarity, organization, and overall quality of our manuscript. We appreciate your valuable input and hope that our responses and revisions adequately address your concerns. We are looking forward to hearing from you. Best regards, Authors Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Response-to-rev-comments.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0315420.r002
12 Nov 2024 Decision Letter - Hosam Al-Samarraie, Editor PONE-D-24-21575R1Time Efficiency as a Mediator Between Institutional Support and Higher Education Student Engagement During e-LearningPLOS ONE Dear Dr. Alwerthan, 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 Dec 27 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, Hosam Al-Samarraie Academic Editor PLOS ONE Journal Requirements: 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. 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: (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 #2: Yes ****** 3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #2: I Don't Know ****** 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: No ****** 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: The author has made improvements in addressing the feedback, but there are still minor issues related to grammar, typos, flow, and readability. These adjustments will further enhance the clarity and quality of the manuscript. Below are some examples of the corrections needed: - Page 2 > Line 4: There is a repetition of the word "in". - Some sentences are a bit long and could be broken down into shorter sentences to improve readability. For instance, the sentence on Page 3 > Paragraph 1 > last sentence could be simplified for easier comprehension. - Page 3 > Paragraph 1 > Line 8: The term "pandemic" is mentioned twice. - Page 4 > Paragraph 3: The phrase "individuals who" is repeated. - Page 5, Paragraph 1: Check for repeated punctuation. - Ensure the citation style is consistent throughout the document. - It would be beneficial to add a paragraph to conclusion that discusses the limitations of the study. This paragraph could also include recommendations for future research. ****** 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: Eshrag Aljehani ******** [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. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0315420.r003
Revision 2
21 Nov 2024 Author Response Dear Reviewer I hope this message finds you well. I am writing to express my sincere gratitude for your insightful comments and valuable feedback on my manuscript. Your comments have significantly contributed to improving the quality and clarity of the work. I have carefully addressed all your comments and suggestions, as detailed in the revised manuscript. The tracked changes file highlights the modifications made. These changes include, but are not limited to the following: Reviewer Comments and Author Responses Grammar, Typos, Flow, and Readability: The manuscript was thoroughly proofread to resolve all issues, including: Correcting the repetition of 'in' on Page 2, Line 4. Simplifying the long sentence in Page 3, Paragraph 1, last sentence. Removing the duplicate mention of 'pandemic' on Page 3, Paragraph 1, Line 8. Eliminating the repeated phrase 'individuals who' on Page 4, Paragraph 3. Resolving repeated punctuation on Page 5, Paragraph 1. Citation Style Consistency: Ensured uniform citation formatting throughout the manuscript. Discussion on Limitations and Future Research: Added a new 'Limitations and Future Studies' section before the conclusion, addressing key areas such as data collection limitations, potential biases, and suggestions for future research. This includes specific directions on demographic influences, intervention-based assessments, and employing multi-method approaches to validate findings. Once again, thank you for your constructive comments, which I believe have greatly enhanced the manuscript. Please feel free to let me know if there are any additional aspects that require further attention. I look forward to your feedback. Best regards, Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: responses to reviewer 3-round 2.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0315420.r004
26 Nov 2024 Decision Letter - Hosam Al-Samarraie, Editor Time Efficiency as a Mediator Between Institutional Support and Higher Education Student Engagement During e-Learning PONE-D-24-21575R2 Dear Dr. Alwerthan, 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, Hosam Al-Samarraie Academic Editor PLOS ONE Additional Editor Comments (optional): Thank you for addressing all comments. Reviewers' comments: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0315420.r005
Formally Accepted
28 Nov 2024 Acceptance Letter - Hosam Al-Samarraie, Editor PONE-D-24-21575R2 PLOS ONE Dear Dr. Alwerthan, 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 Hosam Al-Samarraie Academic Editor PLOS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0315420.r006

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 .