How breakthroughs happen: Unearthing the boundary conditions of eco-friendly deliberate practice and eco-innovation performance

Yin-shi Jin; Asia Sohail; Shahid Iqbal; Tehreem Fatima; Arslan Ayub

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0316802

Peer Review History

Original SubmissionJune 6, 2023
9 Jun 2024 Decision Letter - Liping Liu, Editor PONE-D-23-14796How breakthroughs happen: Unearthing the boundary conditions of eco-friendly deliberate practice and eco-innovation performancePLOS ONE Dear Dr. Ayub, 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. The author needs to provide approval from the ethics committee.The final decision is to integrate the suggestions of the two reviewers. Please submit your revised manuscript by Jul 24 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, Liping Liu 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. Note from Emily Chenette, Editor in Chief of PLOS ONE, and Iain Hrynaszkiewicz, Director of Open Research Solutions at PLOS: Did you know that depositing data in a repository is associated with up to a 25% citation advantage (https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0230416)? If you’ve not already done so, consider depositing your raw data in a repository to ensure your work is read, appreciated and cited by the largest possible audience. You’ll also earn an Accessible Data icon on your published paper if you deposit your data in any participating repository (https://plos.org/open-science/open-data/#accessible-data). 3. Thank you for stating the following financial disclosure: [This article is one of the interim results of the Jilin Provincial Education Department's 2022 Fund Project "Research on the Construction System of Jilin Province's Long-Term Care Talent Team (JJKH20230862SK)" and the 2022 Changchun Normal University Humanities and Social Sciences Fund Project "Comparative Study on the Construction System of Long-Term Care Talent Teams in China and Japan (CSJJ2022010SK)".]. 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. 4. In the online submission form, you indicated that [Data is available upon reasonable request from the corresponding 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. 5. Please amend your authorship list in your manuscript file to include author Yin-shi Jin, Shahid Iqbal, Tehreem Fatima, and Arslan Ayub. Additional Editor Comments (if provided): [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: 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: No 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: Comment 1: The introduction is lengthy and contains numerous complex sentences. Consider simplifying the language for better readability. Ensure that each sentence contributes significantly to the overall understanding of the study. Comment 2: The identification of the literature gap is well-established, emphasizing the scarcity of empirical studies on the boundary conditions of eco-innovation performance. However, it might be helpful to briefly mention the specific gaps this study aims to address within the existing literature. Comment 3: The final paragraph seems in introduction incomplete and lacks a concluding sentence. Consider summarizing the key points discussed in the introduction and providing a segue into the subsequent sections of the paper. Comment 4: The manuscript introduces several concepts such as POS, DL, EDP, EP, and ER. While these are explained individually, a summary or conceptual framework that visually illustrates the relationships among these constructs could enhance clarity for the reader. Comment 5: The manuscript draws on various theories (e.g., social cognitive theory, path-goal theory, transformational leadership theory) to support the proposed relationships. It would be beneficial to provide a more integrated discussion of how these theories complement each other in explaining the proposed relationships. Comment 6: The authors state that data were collected through face-to-face interviews, but details on the interviewers' training, standardization, and monitoring are missing. Providing such information would enhance the study's transparency and reliability. Comment 7: While the authors provide sample items for each construct, it would be beneficial to include the full set of items in an appendix or supplementary material. This would aid readers in assessing the comprehensiveness and appropriateness of the measurement instruments. Comment 8: The scale for EDP, adapted from Sonnentag and Irion (2010), contains 15 items. Considering the potential respondent burden, the authors may want to discuss the rationale behind using such a lengthy scale and how they ensured respondents' engagement and accuracy. Comment 9: The discussion outlines the main contribution as exploring the antecedents and outcomes of EDP in the service industry in Pakistan. However, the authors could provide more insight into the broader implications of these findings. How does this study contribute to the existing knowledge in the field of eco-innovation and employee performance? Are there practical implications for organizations or policymakers? Comment 10: In the theoretical implications the use of social cognitive theory to explain the mediating role of EDP is mentioned, but the discussion lacks a nuanced explanation of how this theory precisely operates within the proposed model. Clarifying the underlying mechanisms and processes through which mastery experiences and self-efficacy are accumulated would enhance the theoretical coherence of the argument. Comment 11: The practical implications lack specificity and concrete guidance for organizations. While the study suggests interventions such as role clarity, job embeddedness, and flexible working arrangements to promote EDP, it would be more beneficial to provide detailed and actionable strategies that organizations can implement. Clear examples and case studies could enhance the practical utility of the recommendations. Reviewer #2: The paper is well written. However, I would like to provide some suggestions to improve the quality of this paper. The abstract is well written, well composed. However, breakdown complex words and sentences like predicated on deliberate practice" and "nexus." The introduction is quite lengthy. Consider combining related ideas into shorter paragraphs. Define key terms like eco-innovation performance (EP) and employee resilience (ER) earlier in the introduction. Highlight the specific research gap and the study's contribution more prominently. The methodology is well composed. The data analysis is complete. However, tabulation must be in place, these are in the appendix section. Place them where they belong to make things more clear. In the conclusion; summarise the key findings in a shorter and more impactful way. You can remove sentences that repeat information already stated like "underexplored construct" and "hitherto unexplored mechanism." Briefly define EDP and EP for readers who might not be familiar with these acronyms (e.g., employee-driven innovation for EDP, environmental performance for EP). ****** 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: Dr. Md Billal Hossain ******** [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.0316802.r001
Revision 1
18 Oct 2024 Author Response PONE-D-23-14796 How breakthroughs happen: Unearthing the boundary conditions of eco-friendly deliberate practice and eco-innovation performance PLOS ONE Dear Dr., 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. The author needs to provide approval from the ethics committee. The final decision is to integrate the suggestions of the two reviewers. We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript. Kind regards, Liping Liu Academic Editor PLOS ONE Dear Dr. Liu, Thank you for your valuable feedback and for providing the opportunity to revise our manuscript, "How breakthroughs happen: Unearthing the boundary conditions of eco-friendly deliberate practice and eco-innovation performance". We appreciate the reviewers' insightful comments, which have helped improve the clarity and quality of the manuscript. We have addressed all the points raised by the reviewers, including simplifying the abstract, refining the introduction, providing clearer explanations of key concepts, and incorporating a more detailed discussion of the theoretical implications. Additionally, we have moved the tables from the appendix to the main body for clarity, as suggested. We will also ensure to provide the approval from the ethics committee as requested. We look forward to submitting the revised version and are confident that the revisions have strengthened the manuscript. Thank you for your time and consideration. Kind regards, 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. Note from Emily Chenette, Editor in Chief of PLOS ONE, and Iain Hrynaszkiewicz, Director of Open Research Solutions at PLOS: Did you know that depositing data in a repository is associated with up to a 25% citation advantage (https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0230416)? If you’ve not already done so, consider depositing your raw data in a repository to ensure your work is read, appreciated and cited by the largest possible audience. You’ll also earn an Accessible Data icon on your published paper if you deposit your data in any participating repository (https://plos.org/open-science/open-data/#accessible-data). 3. Thank you for stating the following financial disclosure: [This article is one of the interim results of the Jilin Provincial Education Department's 2022 Fund Project "Research on the Construction System of Jilin Province's Long-Term Care Talent Team (JJKH20230862SK)" and the 2022 Changchun Normal University Humanities and Social Sciences Fund Project "Comparative Study on the Construction System of Long-Term Care Talent Teams in China and Japan (CSJJ2022010SK)".]. 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. 4. In the online submission form, you indicated that [Data is available upon reasonable request from the corresponding 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. 5. Please amend your authorship list in your manuscript file to include author Yin-shi Jin, Shahid Iqbal, Tehreem Fatima, and Arslan Ayub. 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: 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: No 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 Reviewer #1: Comment 1: The introduction is lengthy and contains numerous complex sentences. Consider simplifying the language for better readability. Ensure that each sentence contributes significantly to the overall understanding of the study. Comment 2: The identification of the literature gap is well-established, emphasizing the scarcity of empirical studies on the boundary conditions of eco-innovation performance. However, it might be helpful to briefly mention the specific gaps this study aims to address within the existing literature. Comment 3: The final paragraph seems in introduction incomplete and lacks a concluding sentence. Consider summarizing the key points discussed in the introduction and providing a segue into the subsequent sections of the paper. Comment 4: The manuscript introduces several concepts such as POS, DL, EDP, EP, and ER. While these are explained individually, a summary or conceptual framework that visually illustrates the relationships among these constructs could enhance clarity for the reader. Comment 5: The manuscript draws on various theories (e.g., social cognitive theory, path-goal theory, transformational leadership theory) to support the proposed relationships. It would be beneficial to provide a more integrated discussion of how these theories complement each other in explaining the proposed relationships. Comment 6: The authors state that data were collected through face-to-face interviews, but details on the interviewers' training, standardization, and monitoring are missing. Providing such information would enhance the study's transparency and reliability. Comment 7: While the authors provide sample items for each construct, it would be beneficial to include the full set of items in an appendix or supplementary material. This would aid readers in assessing the comprehensiveness and appropriateness of the measurement instruments. Comment 8: The scale for EDP, adapted from Sonnentag and Irion (2010), contains 15 items. Considering the potential respondent burden, the authors may want to discuss the rationale behind using such a lengthy scale and how they ensured respondents' engagement and accuracy. Comment 9: The discussion outlines the main contribution as exploring the antecedents and outcomes of EDP in the service industry in Pakistan. However, the authors could provide more insight into the broader implications of these findings. How does this study contribute to the existing knowledge in the field of eco-innovation and employee performance? Are there practical implications for organizations or policymakers? Comment 10: In the theoretical implications the use of social cognitive theory to explain the mediating role of EDP is mentioned, but the discussion lacks a nuanced explanation of how this theory precisely operates within the proposed model. Clarifying the underlying mechanisms and processes through which mastery experiences and self-efficacy are accumulated would enhance the theoretical coherence of the argument. Comment 11: The practical implications lack specificity and concrete guidance for organizations. While the study suggests interventions such as role clarity, job embeddedness, and flexible working arrangements to promote EDP, it would be more beneficial to provide detailed and actionable strategies that organizations can implement. Clear examples and case studies could enhance the practical utility of the recommendations. Response Comment 1: We have revised the introduction, simplifying complex sentences and ensuring that each sentence contributes to the overall understanding of the study. Comment 2: The introduction now briefly mentions the specific gaps this study aims to address, focusing on the boundary conditions of eco-innovation performance. Comment 3: The final paragraph of the introduction has been revised to include a summary of key points and a clear segue into the next sections. Comment 4: A conceptual framework summarizing the relationships among POS, DL, EDP, EP, and ER has been included for clarity. Comment 5: We have integrated the discussion of social cognitive theory, path-goal theory, and transformational leadership theory to explain how these frameworks complement each other in supporting the proposed relationships. Comment 6: We clarified that the study is questionnaire-based, not interview-based, and have included details on the standardization of the questionnaire process. Comment 7: The full set of measurement items has been provided in Appendix I to ensure comprehensiveness and transparency of the instruments. Comment 8: The rationale for using the 15-item EDP scale, along with measures to maintain respondent engagement, has been discussed in the methodology section.Comment 9: We have expanded the discussion to explain the broader implications of the study for the fields of eco-innovation and employee performance, and included practical implications for organizations and policymakers. Comment 10: The theoretical implications have been clarified, with a more detailed explanation of how social cognitive theory operates within the model, focusing on mastery experiences and self-efficacy. Comment 11: The practical implications have been revised to include specific, actionable strategies for organizations, along with examples to enhance their practical utility. Reviewer #2: The paper is well written. However, I would like to provide some suggestions to improve the quality of this paper. The abstract is well written, well composed. However, breakdown complex words and sentences like predicated on deliberate practice" and "nexus." The introduction is quite lengthy. Consider combining related ideas into shorter paragraphs. Define key terms like eco-innovation performance (EP) and employee resilience (ER) earlier in the introduction. Highlight the specific research gap and the study's contribution more prominently. The methodology is well composed. The data analysis is complete. However, tabulation must be in place, these are in the appendix section. Place them where they belong to make things more clear. In the conclusion; summarise the key findings in a shorter and more impactful way. You can remove sentences that repeat information already stated like "underexplored construct" and "hitherto unexplored mechanism." Briefly define EDP and EP for readers who might not be familiar with these acronyms (e.g., employee-driven innovation for EDP, environmental performance for EP). Response Abstract: We have simplified complex words and phrases like "predicated on deliberate practice" and "nexus" in the abstract for better readability. Introduction Length: The introduction has been shortened by combining related ideas into more concise paragraphs for clarity. Key Terms Definition: Key terms like eco-innovation performance (EP) and employee resilience (ER) have been defined earlier in the introduction. Research Gap and Contribution: The research gap and the study's contributions have been highlighted more prominently in the introduction. Tabulation: The tables have been moved from the appendix to the main body of the paper to improve clarity and coherence. Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Response letter.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0316802.r002
13 Dec 2024 Decision Letter - Ali Junaid Khan, Editor PONE-D-23-14796R1How breakthroughs happen: Unearthing the boundary conditions of eco-friendly deliberate practice and eco-innovation performancePLOS ONE Dear Dr. Ayub, 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. ============================== To ensure the manuscript adheres to ethical guidelines, we require you to provide an official document of Institutional Review Board (IRB) approval for the study. This document is necessary for us to confirm that the research was conducted ethically and in compliance with relevant standards. It has been observed that the manuscript lacks recent literature to support your discussion and analysis. To enhance the robustness of your work, we request that you include studies published in 2024 that align with and reinforce your research context and findings. For Lab, Study and Registered Report Protocols: These article types are not expected to include results but may include pilot data. ============================== Please submit your revised manuscript by Jan 27 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, Ali Junaid Khan, PhD 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. Reviewers' comments: Reviewer's Responses to Questions 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 #2: Yes ****** 3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? 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 #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: 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 #2: The authors have already made substantial revision and now the revised paper is much improved and publishable. I recommend it for publication. Congratulations. ****** 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: Md Billal Hossain ******** [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.0316802.r003
Revision 2
14 Dec 2024 Author Response PONE-D-23-14796R1 How breakthroughs happen: Unearthing the boundary conditions of eco-friendly deliberate practice and eco-innovation performance PLOS ONE Dear Dr. Ayub, Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful review, we find that your work holds potential; however, it does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria in its current form. We would like to offer you the opportunity to submit a revised version that addresses the following points raised during the editorial and peer review process: • To ensure the manuscript adheres to ethical guidelines, we require you to provide an official document of Institutional Review Board (IRB) approval for the study. This document is necessary for us to confirm that the research was conducted ethically and in compliance with relevant standards. • It has been observed that the manuscript lacks recent literature to support your discussion and analysis. To enhance the robustness of your work, we request that you include studies published in 2024 that align with and reinforce your research context and findings. Please submit the revised manuscript along with the requested documentation by 17-12-2024 (within one week). Ensure that the response to the changes and a point-by-point explanation of the revisions are included with your resubmission. Should you have any questions regarding the revision process or the comments provided, please feel free to reach out to us. We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript. Regards, Ali Junaid Khan, PhD Academic Editor PLOS ONE Response Thank you for acknowledging our study and recommending the inclusion of the latest references from 2024. We have enriched the manuscript with relevant and recent citations, as per your suggestion, to strengthen its foundation. Additionally, we have attached the ethical approval document for your reference. We trust these updates align with your expectations and enhance the overall quality of the study. Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Response letter 2.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0316802.r004
18 Dec 2024 Decision Letter - Ali Junaid Khan, Editor How breakthroughs happen: Unearthing the boundary conditions of eco-friendly deliberate practice and eco-innovation performance PONE-D-23-14796R2 Dear Dr. Ayub 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, Ali Junaid Khan, PhD Academic Editor PLOS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0316802.r005
Formally Accepted
23 Dec 2024 Acceptance Letter - Ali Junaid Khan, Editor PONE-D-23-14796R2 PLOS ONE Dear Dr. Ayub, 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 Assistant Professor Dr. Ali Junaid Khan Academic Editor PLOS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0316802.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 .