PONE-D-24-19303A scoping review of interventions about middle school students' attitudes toward sciencePLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Peñaloza,

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 Oct 21 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,

Sonia Vasconcelos, 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. Thank you for stating the following in your manuscript: 

"This work was supported by the National Council for Science and Technology (CONACYT) in

Mexico"

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

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

"The author(s) received no specific funding for this work."

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

3. Please amend either the title on the online submission form (via Edit Submission) or the title in the manuscript so that they are identical.

4. Please include a separate caption for each figure in your manuscript.

5. We note that Figure 3 in your submission contain map images which may be copyrighted. All PLOS content is published under the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY 4.0), which means that the manuscript, images, and Supporting Information files will be freely available online, and any third party is permitted to access, download, copy, distribute, and use these materials in any way, even commercially, with proper attribution. For these reasons, we cannot publish previously copyrighted maps or satellite images created using proprietary data, such as Google software (Google Maps, Street View, and Earth). For more information, see our copyright guidelines: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/licenses-and-copyright.

We require you to either (1) present written permission from the copyright holder to publish these figures specifically under the CC BY 4.0 license, or (2) remove the figures from your submission:

1) You may seek permission from the original copyright holder of Figure 3 to publish the content specifically under the CC BY 4.0 license.  

We recommend that you contact the original copyright holder with the Content Permission Form (http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=7c09/content-permission-form.pdf) and the following text:

“I request permission for the open-access journal PLOS ONE to publish XXX under the Creative Commons Attribution License (CCAL) CC BY 4.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). Please be aware that this license allows unrestricted use and distribution, even commercially, by third parties. Please reply and provide explicit written permission to publish XXX under a CC BY license and complete the attached form.”

Please upload the completed Content Permission Form or other proof of granted permissions as an ""Other"" file with your submission.

In the figure caption of the copyrighted figure, please include the following text: “Reprinted from [ref] under a CC BY license, with permission from [name of publisher], original copyright [original copyright year].”

2) If you are unable to obtain permission from the original copyright holder to publish these figures under the CC BY 4.0 license or if the copyright holder’s requirements are incompatible with the CC BY 4.0 license, please either i) remove the figure or ii) supply a replacement figure that complies with the CC BY 4.0 license. Please check copyright information on all replacement figures and update the figure caption with source information. If applicable, please specify in the figure caption text when a figure is similar but not identical to the original image and is therefore for illustrative purposes only.

The following resources for replacing copyrighted map figures may be helpful:

USGS National Map Viewer (public domain): http://viewer.nationalmap.gov/viewer/

The Gateway to Astronaut Photography of Earth (public domain): http://eol.jsc.nasa.gov/sseop/clickmap/

Maps at the CIA (public domain): https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/index.html and https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/cia-maps-publications/index.html

NASA Earth Observatory (public domain): http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/

Landsat: http://landsat.visibleearth.nasa.gov/

USGS EROS (Earth Resources Observatory and Science (EROS) Center) (public domain): http://eros.usgs.gov/#

Natural Earth (public domain): http://www.naturalearthdata.com/

6. 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:

When you address the comments of each reviewer, please pay particular attention to the necessary clarifications  regarding the accuracy of your analysis from the scoping review.

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

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

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

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #1: N/A

Reviewer #2: N/A

**********

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: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: The manuscript describes a scoping review aiming to characterise the research on student`s attitudes towards science involving the implementation of educational interventions. The work is well developed, the authors identified the constructs and the aspects addressed in educational interventions based in 37 published papers. Also, this research underlines the need to assess the impact of pedagogical interventions components, in order to clarify the effectiveness of these practices.

Nevertheless, the limitation of the work, related to the representative aspect of data, was poorly developed. The authors stated that 38% of studies were carried out in Turkey. This country, together with USA, account for 51,3% of the studies analysed. First of all, the authors should elaborate an explanation about this trend in Turkey. Is it related to a specific author and/or institution? In order to have a deeper understanding of the state of the art, the study would be expanded to capture, at least, the english abstracts from texts written in other languages, aiming to cover papers published in not-speaking Spanish/English countries. The authors pointed out, in the discussion sector (page 27), that a small number of studies were conducted in Latin America. But what about Brazil, a Portuguese-speaking country? It is the largest country in Latin America with a total area of over 8.5 million square kilometers. Its scientific production cannot be neglected.The authors presented a little discussion about the subject in the conclusion sector (page 31). They highlighted that Brazil is one of the countries with a significatif number of publications in the education area. I suggest to merge this topic in only one paragraph. Also, the authors must explicite that the results may be underestimated due to language limitation and this limitation should be highlighted in the abstract.

By the way, the abstract should be more precise and informative about the data found in the review. I list some of them:

- An important data pointed by the authors is that only 19% of the studies presented a conceptual definition of the construct of interest towards science (feelings, beliefs and values). This is a main issue in this work, which highlighted the opportunity to point out the necessity to adopt precise theoretical definitions in the study of attitudes.

- All studies used a questionnaire or Likert scale to collect data, being the majority of studies approached by a quantitative perspective.

- A medium of 4 articles had been published since 2014. Nevertheless, it increased to 8 in 2022. Does it reflect a necessity to study about trusting in science, an important issue by covid times?

- This review found 7 different teaching approaches to develop students` attitudes towards science, and 30,3% correspond to learning environments mediated by information and communication technologies, but the effectiveness of this teaching strategy remains inconclusive.

Other commentaries:

- It is necessary to characterise the ERIC database.

- Pg. 7 : k-12 – what does it mean? / Pg.9 : through

- The word “highlight/highlighted” is employed several times.

-The authors did not cite the ROSE Project (The Relevance of Science Education), based in the University of Oslo, Norway, and implemented in more than 40 countries. This Project is relevant in the research on students` attitude towards science.

Reviewer #2: The manuscript has certainly showcased extensive work on data collection and highlighted issues about educational interventions to promote positive attitudes towards science among middle school students, such as several gaps in the understanding of the constructs used in these interventions as well as the need to further research to focuses on intrinsic factors like racial background and perceptions on self-efficacy to better understand the long-term impact of these educational programs. Nonetheless, some issues in the presentation and discussion of the data should be addressed by the authors before publication so that the results presented in the manuscript can be better understood. Therefore, the following questions should be addressed by the authors:

1. In the Abstract (page 2, lines 6-8), the authors state “This paper presents a scoping review of 37 papers published in English and Spanish on the intervention literature from the last 10 years, both to describe the research outputs and to analyse the evidence on the effectiveness of different scientific databases”. I am not sure what the authors mean by “effectiveness of diferente scientific databases”. Please clarify.

2. Please revise the references format throughout the text. For example, in the introduction section (page 3, lines 11-12) reads: “Guo et al., 20-22; Musengimana et al., 20-21”. The hyphen should be removed between the year-numbers.

3. Still on page 3 (lines 16-18), the authors states: “In the words of Helvaci & Yilmaz (2022), the pedagogical practices developed by teachers have an impact on students' motivation and therefore promote the formation of positive attitudes towards science”. By the choice of wording by the authors, it is understood that the statement is a direct citation from Helvaci & Yilmaz. If so, quotation marks are needed.

4. In Table 1 the authors describe the pedagogical approaches used in science education. However, it is not clear within the table with theorical references were used to define each approach. I suggest revising the table to clarify this issue.

5. On page 6, the caption of Table 1 reads “Note. Original creation”. I suggest changing it to “Table created by the authors”. Same goes for the other tables in the manuscript.

6. On page 8 (lines 4-7), the authors state: “In the words of Savelsbergh et al. (2016), studying the constructs together may lead to confusing interpretations of the outcomes of an intervention, making it relevant to address them independently”. By the choice of wording by the authors, it is understood that the statement is a direct citation from Savelsbergh et al. If so, quotation marks are needed.

7. Still on page 8 (lines 10-13), reads: “Therefore, it may also be appropriate to analyse only those educational interventions that are implemented at the appropriate age for secondary education. For this reason, it may also be appropriate to analyse only those educational interventions that are implemented at the appropriate age for secondary education”. The phrase is duplicated. Please revise.

8. In the Method section (page 9), the authors describe the use of a “initial search equation” to explore concepts that would apply to the proposed scoping review. However, it is not clear throughout the manuscript nor in the supplementary information what these search equations were. Please clarify. The searching terms should be clearly described in the methodology section.

9. Regarding the figures and tables, all the figures and tables in the manuscript are presented without a caption. Figures should be followed by a descriptive caption describing the data shown and drawing attention to relevant findings or observations. Please revise.

10. Regarding Figure 3, I suggest revising the way the data is presented. The number of publications for each country should appear in the figure or be described in the caption (see comment above).

11. On page 18 (lines 6-7), reads: “The analysis shown in Figure 3 does not include documents that aim to conduct a literature review”. I believe that the referred analysis is the one shown in figure 4 and not figure 3 (as stated in the text). Please, revise.

12. Regarding Figure 4, I suggest including the number of each type of research design in the graph along with the percentages. Also, the caption is missing (see comment 9).

13. Figure 5, it is not clear what the category “ATPT” means, the caption is incomplete. It reads: “ATPT= Attitudes toward a particular”. Should it be “particular topic”? If so, what is the difference between this category and the previous one, ATSCD (particular science discipline)? Please clarify. Moreover, I suggest include the numbers related to each category in the graph and in the caption (see comment 9).

14. Figure 6, I suggest including the numbers on top of the bars in the graph to facilitate the reading of the data. Caption is also needed (see comment 9).

15. In the Discussion section, I encourage the authors to dig deeper into their interpretation of the data collected from their review, especially those regarding racial/ethnic identity and the lack of studies focusing on the topic. For example, the authors could explore the implications of those interventions that are under-researched, delving into why that might be the case and how it impacts practice or policies in science education. I strongly believe that exploring those points would benefit the discussion of the manuscript.

16. Also in the Discussion section (page 30, lines 19-22), reads: “Notably, our study reveals that only seven documents acknowledged the use of evaluation tools to assess programme implementation against objectives or intervention protocols, with only four considering tools or methods to assess programme design.” It should be stated which studies are the ones mentioned. Please revise.

17. In the Discussion section (pages 26-30) and later in the Conclusions (page 30-32) the authors highlight several limitations of their review. I suggest the authors to include a Limitation section after the conclusions so that they can explore in more details the implication of those limitations and how future studies could undermine such limitations.

18. In the supplementary 1 (attached to the manuscript), the authors describe their review protocol. In the protocol, one of the specific research questions is: “What is the current status of localised training programmes in terms of socio-demographic variables?’. However, in the description of the research questions in the manuscript (page 8), the above question is not mentioned. The question doesn’t appear to be addressed by the results presented in the manuscript either. Please, clarify.

19. Also in the supplementary 1, in the “Data extraction” section, it reads: “A summary data table is used to extract relevant information. The aim of this table is to systematically organise key findings in order to effectively address all research enquiries. The components to be included in the table are outlined below”. However, no table is presented. Please, provide table.

I would be happy to review a revised version of this manuscript.

**********

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: Andréa Carla de Souza Góes

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 figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

Attachments

Attachment

Submitted filename: Reviewers report_27.08.24.docx

A scoping review of interventions about middle school students' attitudes toward science

PONE-D-24-19303R1

Dear Dr. Peñaloza,

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,

Sonia Vasconcelos, PhD

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

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: All comments have been addressed

**********

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

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #1: N/A

Reviewer #2: N/A

**********

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: 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 #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: The authors have fully addressed the reviewers comments.

Here are just 2 phrases to review:

... of science education interventions that (in) other regions (pg.28)

Furthermore, a significant challenge lies in understanding the realities across different (countries ?) when ... (pg.32)

Reviewer #2: In this reviewed version, the authors address the concerns previously raised. I commend the authors for their efforts in improving their manuscript and to address all my comments and suggestions. I consider the manuscript to be suitable for publication.

**********

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: No

Reviewer #2: No

**********