PONE-D-24-18436Educational Attainment of Village Heads and Adolescents' Academic Performance - A Perspective Based on the External Environment of Village SettlementsPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Li,

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 14 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,

Fabiola Vincent Moshi

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 include your full ethics statement in the ‘Methods’ section of your manuscript file. In your statement, please include the full name of the IRB or ethics committee who approved or waived your study, as well as whether or not you obtained informed written or verbal consent. If consent was waived for your study, please include this information in your statement as well. 3. Please include a copy of Table 7 which you refer to in your text on page 33 in PDF submission. 

Additional Editor Comments:

Include strengths and limitations of the study

[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: I Don't Know

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

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: Generally, this manuscript though well intended, is seemingly deficient in several areas. To this end the author is best advised to consider having a section in the manuscript devoted to the study population and giving us a clear background of what it is about the population that is special and warrants it being investigated by way of this study.

What would help would be for the author to review the introduction section, section 1. This section could be improved if the author seeks to ensure that there is a better level of coherence in the thoughts being expressed.

The manuscript is not clear in stating the economic or social platform that is used for information transfer or knowledge sharing by village elders to young persons in the population.

Assertions and suppositions, if not opinions, ought to be supported by appropriate citations/references/literature. This sadly was missing on several instances throughout the manuscript. The author needs to give readers a better understanding of certain characteristics of the study population. What does rural mean in the context of the study? What does knowledge of the village elders speak to? Do they have university degrees etc.? what is it about them that is distinct and lends to the arguments being made?

The author needs to establish coherence. There are several instances where thoughts are disjointed and appear out of place. This is very much noticeable in the Sections 1 and 2 of the manuscript.

The author would be best advised to make use of the funnel approach when constructing section 1/or revising same.

Additionally, this section lacks reference to any statistical/data to support some of the assertions made. One is not sure of the origin/source of certain statements.

There are instances where areas in section 1, 2 and 3 are not well developed or require further expansion. There are too many disconnected parts.

In section 4 (e.g section 4.4.1) of the manuscript, the author is often guilty of beginning to speak of a method of measurement/analysis but then in the same breath talks of a discussion. This disjointedness ought to be addressed. An explanation of a methodology cannot suddenly descend to a discussion of something else that appears unrelated.

Additional Comments

The manuscript was void of page numbers and line numbering. This made the process of tagging areas of concern rather difficult for the reviewer.

The article title could be more specific/definitive and self-explanatory without having to refer to the body of the manuscript should the author choose to identify the study population therein.

The author is best advised to choose a single citation style instead of using two distinct citation styles at the same time. This flaw is very prominent in the introduction section of the manuscript. In other areas of the manuscript the author is guilty of alternating between citation styles. The author should seek to be consistent by using a single citation style.

Certain sections of the manuscript appear to be disjointed and out of place. Evidence of this exists in the second paragraph of the 'Introduction' wherein, there is a sentence which starts with the word "Besides...' Additionally, the author is best advised to cite references when making statements and/or inferences that are not original to the author. Evidence of this is seen in the sentence in paragraph 2 of the 'Introduction' wherein there is a sentence that begins with 'therefore...'

In the final paragraph of the 'Introduction' the author introduced "besides the aforementioned policy implications..." This note in the opinion of the reviewer is best suited for the discussions or recommendations sections of the manuscript. Seeking to discuss policy implications at this juncture of the manuscript appears out of place. Additionally, the final sentence of the las paragraph of the "introduction" appears best suited for the section on 'research design/methodology' This sentence also appears to be out of place. The author is best advised to correct this.

Section 2 (Literature Review) is also replete with the use of inconsistent citation styles. In paragraph 2 of Section 2, the author attempts to introduce some four aspects of educational development of adolescents. It is apparent that the author made use of the incorrect punctuation mark after stating each of the four aspects. This made reading this section a bit of a challenge given repetitious use of words heretofore mentioned in the assumed heading sentences.(section 2.1). Additionally, having each of the four aspects in the same paragraph suggest that they are invariably connected when this is not necessarily the case. The author is advised to rephrase this paragraph so as to remove any ambiguity/doubts surrounding the information being conveyed. Each point could be placed in its own paragraph.

In section 2.2, the author made a bold statement on "talented people governing the village..." This point important as it might be seemingly is void of any credible citation. Additionally, it begs the question as to where exactly this might be occurring. Would need revisiting by the author

In the final paragraph of Section 2, the author in attempting to make a case in respect of "The nature of duties and powers... seemingly did not present a clear harmonization of thoughts. This made this point appear disjointed and out of place. This too warrants rephrasing in alignment with relevancy of the section it falls under.

Section 2.3, though a god showcase of the theoretical premise upon which the paper is written, again the author has been guilty of not citing correctly/not citing at all.

Under section 3 (Research Design), it would augur well for good reading should the author include an area to address the study population specifically.

Under section 3.2.2, it is felt that the first two sentences though a bold statement appear not to be cited. In the absence of citations here, the question asked is whether the author is presenting an opinion or a mere conjecture.

Within the first paragraph of section 3.2.2, the author suddenly speaks of an econometric model and standardization, words of which connotes methods of analysis. Perhaps the author may opt to include a section that addresses specifically what these forms of analyses entail. Having a section specifically devoted to the methodology/methods employed could address this. This section could also include the kinds and types of analyses needed instead of morphing analysis with results.

Under section 3.2.3, again the author though referring to ''drawing on literature" fails to at the least cite one literature that that adopts the approach of controls for gender in the manner expressed in the manuscript. This is a n area for improvement by the author. the author is advised to at the least provide a basis/source for certain statements made or being alluded to.

Under section 4 the author appears to make reference to several kinds of analyses underpinning the results. However, what is not entirely clear is what are some of the key assumptions upon which these analyses are based. This need to be borne out in this section. Additionally, re: paragraph that speaks of stepwise regression, the author in closing attempts to morph results with discussion/implications of work. The author is best advised to include this in the discussion/conclusion section of the manuscript.

The contents in each section should be distinctly related to the titled of the given section heading.

Section 4.2 appear to be properly presented.

All other areas of the manuscript appear to be well constructed, with use of the appropriate forms of analyses and arriving at the appropriate results.

Section 5 generally appears to be sufficiently succinct with the author using the study findings to make appropriate recommendations.

Other areas for improvement

Review the need for three significant levels when presenting results in tabular form. What is the basis for this? Must be supported by proper citation/literature.

Reviewer #2: General comment: I commend the authors for their innovative research ideas. However, the manuscript is quite lengthy and would benefit from a more conventional structure (e.g., abstract, introduction, methods, results, discussion, and conclusion). Adopting this format and streamlining the content could enhance overall clarity and coherence, reducing potential confusion for readers.

Comment #1: I recommend consistently using the term 'China Family Panel Studies' throughout the abstract and methods sections rather than using 'China Family Tracking Survey’ in the abstract.

Comment#2: The manuscript contains a mixture of citation styles. I recommend using a single citation style consistently throughout the manuscript—either Vancouver or Harvard—according to the journal's guidelines.

Comment #3: The term 'highly educated' usually refers to individuals with advanced degrees, such as a PhD or master's, who have specialized knowledge and skills. Since village leaders in China are unlikely to hold such qualifications, I recommend using the term 'well-educated' throughout the manuscript instead. If the authors have a compelling justification for using 'highly educated,' they may retain it, but this should be clearly explained.

Comment#4: The literature review section is overly lengthy, and since this is not a systematic review, a concise summary would be more appropriate. I recommend merging the literature review with the introduction to create a focused and coherent introduction (specifically, 3 to 4 pages or less) that effectively summarizes the background, research context, and study hypothesis.

Comment#5: Table 1: Categorical variables, including gender, political identity, agricultural production, and internet use, should not be described using mean and standard deviation (SD), as these summary measures are appropriate only for continuous data with a normal distribution. Instead, categorical data should be presented using frequencies and percentages.

Comment#5: Tables: I recommend naming the columns as Model 1, Model 2, and Model 3 etc., instead of (1), (2), and (3).

Comment#6: Tables: I understand that the significance levels of 1%, 5%, and 10% correspond to p-values of 0.01, 0.05, and 0.1, respectively. However, most research considers associations with p-values below 0.05 as statistically significant. Therefore, treating p-values of 0.1 as indicating a significant association may be unconventional and should be carefully justified.

Comment#7: Tables: To better understand the data, it is more appropriate to present the coefficients and their 95% confidence intervals.

Comment#8: All tables should be self-explanatory. For example, in Table 5, Column 1: Edu_year 0.111***(0.023) – it's unclear what the numbers in brackets represent. Please clarify this in the table or the table notes.

Comment#9: I recommend restructuring the article to follow this sequence: abstract, introduction, methods, results, discussion, and conclusion. The current format presents the discussion before the results (i.e., in the literature review section), which can be confusing for readers. Additionally, combining the discussion with the results further adds to the confusion. A more precise separation of these sections would improve readability and coherence.

Comment#10: The conclusion is too lengthy. Including detailed discussions of mechanisms or extending the discussion detracts from the main points. This section should be concise, focusing exclusively on the study's major findings.

Comment#11: Policy recommendations: This section would be more effective if it informed the reader about the current policy and clearly explained how the study's findings could change, influence, or improve the existing policies. The current version lacks focus.

Comment#12: Adding line numbers to the manuscript would simplify the review process, allowing for more precise referencing and feedback.

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

**********

[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: PONE-D-24-18436-reviewer attachment.pdf

PONE-D-24-18436R1The Impact of Village Heads' Educational Levels on Adolescent Academic Performance: Evidence from Rural ChinaPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Li,

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.

Thank you for the revisions you have made. The reviewers still request some additional clarifications, and I would like the choice of instrument to be further justified by references to the literature. 

Please submit your revised manuscript by Dec 13 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,

Leonard Moulin

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 #1: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

**********

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

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Partly

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: 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.

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: No

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 done well in improving the structure and quality of the paper to include its coherence and layout among other things. Notwithstanding the improvements made, there yet remain a few more areas that should be tidied up or considered for improvement:

Line 26- author should relook at words 'well education levels. This does not read well. I take it that this might just be a typographical error.

Line 50- Authors may give consideration to linking rural areas of developing countries with the previous paragraph for the sake of coherence.

Line 58- Consider inserting a full stop after the word capabilities. Next sentence should start with 'Those"

Lines 111-115 -suggest that the study employed a quantitative research design, however from the last few sentences of the introduction one gets the impression that there were both qualitative and quantitative approaches involved. Authors need to clarify.

Line 76-106- Authors appear to be guilty of discussing implications of the study findings at this stage of the article. Authors may want to shift these elements to the discussion section of the paper and perhaps close the introduction section with just the rationale for the study.

Line 107-109 Not sure if this is warranted as the section head will bring this out.

Line 112- this paragraph could be restructured differently to eliminate the obvious repetitiveness in the presence of the second sentence. Not sure of the reason the author identifies quantitative assessment again when this was already stated in the first sentence.

Line 134 -authors suddenly speaks of 'survey questionnaire'. Are the authors saying that the official channels of CFPS uses the survey questionnaire as a tool. If this is correct then the authors should state this by using words such as " The survey questionnaire a tool used in the ....... includes....

This would make for better reading and lend to coherence.

Line 144- authors need to qualify the term basic characteristics. Are they referring to demographics, socio-demographics, clinical...what exactly?

Line 148- Authors may wish to reposition the ethical statement at the end of the Methods section instead of having t here.

Line 168- what was the approach used in standardizing test scores.

Line 197- Control variables. Are the authors saying that they controlled for confounding and that these were potential confounders. What exactly is the rationale for control variables.

Line 229- Can authors say what excatly is meant by conduct robustness checks. What was done exactly?

Lines 327-330: If this is relatable to what was stated in line 229, then authors would need to find a way to bring section together under methods. Would suggest that we not repeat methodology under results section. If we are reporting on results, then report on results and not repeat method.

Line 364-366: similar occurrence as in lines 327-330, where the authors in presenting the results of mechanism analysis appear to to be also describing the methods involve. Authors should review and ensure that only results are captured.

Line 394: why are the authors discussing or referencing discussions above when there is a section wholly devoted to discussions (line 415). Authors should review and make a decision on what should be in results and what should be under discussions.

Line 416, 437, 464: Authors may wish to refine these subheadings by taking out the word 'discussion' since the heading at line 415 already covers this. Further authors are asked to consider presenting the results in the format of

-findings (discuss all findings)

-discussions of findings in relation to existing literature

-strengths and limitations of the study

-implications of findings

This approach will significantly strengthen the paper and make for easy reading.

Line 494: Very good points, however, this section reads more like what the discussion section should read like or consist. The authors could tighten up the conclusion to produce at the most two significant paragraphs that speaks to key but impactful points emanating from the findings but are also overarching.

Reviewer #2: General Comment: I commend the authors for their efforts in revising the manuscript. The improvements made are commendable, and overall, the manuscript has been strengthened.

Comment #1:

In my previous review, I suggested adding 95% confidence intervals. In Model 2, the results now show: -0.106* [-0.230, 0.018]. The 95% confidence intervals indicate that the range includes zero, which means the result is not statistically significant at the 5% level. Please check if this is a typographical error and revise accordingly.

Comment #2:

In my previous feedback, I advised against extending the discussion into the conclusion section. It seems that this point was not fully addressed. For example, in line 511, there is a citation of other studies, which is not appropriate for this section. The Conclusion should not discuss findings or introduce new information.

**********

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: Yes: Dr. Anderson Bendera

**********

[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.

PONE-D-24-18436R2The Impact of Village Heads' Educational Levels on Adolescent Academic Performance: Evidence from Rural ChinaPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Li,

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 11 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.

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,

Leonard Moulin

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.

Additional Editor Comments:

I sent your paper back out to the original referees. They are pleased with the revisions and suggest that I now accept the paper for publication. I agree that the paper has moved in the right direction. I do have one additional comment that I would like to see addressed in a further revision: I would like the choice of instrument to be further justified by references to the literature. Once you provide this I expect to make a final decision.

[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 #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: (No Response)

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

**********

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

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

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

Reviewer #1: The authors have since addressed my comments. To this end I am comfortable that the manuscript has been further strengthened.

Commendations to the authors for their perseverance and commitment to the process of peer review.

Except for two typographical errors that could be easily addressed at editing for publication re: lines 85 -word separation for across-sectional to " a cross-sectional" and lines 386-387 where the author need to insert their citation at the end of the sentence on "Karadag's..." I find no other issue with manuscript.

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes: Anderson Bendera

**********

[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.

The Impact of Village Heads' Educational Levels on Adolescent Academic Performance: Evidence from Rural China

PONE-D-24-18436R3

Dear Dr. Li,

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,

Leonard Moulin

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments: