Dear Dr. Zhou,

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.

• 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,

Lawrence Jun Zhang, Ph.D.

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. We note that you have indicated that there are restrictions to data sharing for this study. For studies involving human research participant data or other sensitive data, we encourage authors to share de-identified or anonymized data. However, when data cannot be publicly shared for ethical reasons, we allow authors to make their data sets available upon request. For information on unacceptable data access restrictions, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-unacceptable-data-access-restrictions. 

Before we proceed with your manuscript, please address the following prompts:

a) If there are ethical or legal restrictions on sharing a de-identified data set, please explain them in detail (e.g., data contain potentially identifying or sensitive patient information, data are owned by a third-party organization, etc.) and who has imposed them (e.g., a Research Ethics Committee or Institutional Review Board, etc.). Please also provide contact information for a data access committee, ethics committee, or other institutional body to which data requests may be sent.

b) If there are no restrictions, please upload the minimal anonymized data set necessary to replicate your study findings to a stable, public repository and provide us with the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers. Please see http://www.bmj.com/content/340/bmj.c181.long for guidelines on how to de-identify and prepare clinical data for publication. For a list of recommended repositories, please see https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/recommended-repositories. You also have the option of uploading the data as Supporting Information files, but we would recommend depositing data directly to a data repository if possible.

Please update your Data Availability statement in the submission form accordingly.

3. We note you have included a table to which you do not refer in the text of your manuscript. Please ensure that you refer to Table 7 in your text; if accepted, production will need this reference to link the reader to the Table.

4. Please include captions for your Supporting Information files at the end of your manuscript, and update any in-text citations to match accordingly. Please see our Supporting Information guidelines for more information: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/supporting-information.

[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?

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: No

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

Reviewer #1: I think that this is a powerful, informative paper which has the potential to be published and welcomed by the readers of this journal. Overall, the rationale for the paper is clear, the topic, Chinese vocabulary acquisition in higher education, is an area in need of further research, and the authors have designed a learning environment influenced by learning theories, and proven pedagogical learning designs in the form of seamless learning. However, there are some areas that I feel need to be addressed before this study is ready for publication.

The introduction clearly presents the background and some of the aims of the study, but it would be better if you clearly described the main learning tasks and methodology and how they are related to the study. For example, more emphasis needs to be placed on the article writing e.g. authentic, contextual tasks which complement Seamless learning. This needs to be emphasised from the beginning as I feel it is an important aspect of this study. Also, you could mention DBR in the introduction. Perhaps you could discuss why DBR complements seamless learning to strengthen the aims of the study.

The following sentence should be moved from section 3.4 to the introduction to help readers understand the structure of the paper: “However, for the research purpose, the analysis in this paper focuses mainly on the student essay artifacts, which was created using target HSK Level 4 vocabulary.”

The methodology is mainly well-explained and follows proven steps in DBR but there are a few areas that need further explanation. For example, in section 3.2 please explain how the 240 words were selected. What criteria was used to select the words from the list of 600?

Were the students in China at one university or studying overseas? You mention they were selected from universities from all over China but then took the same course.

There is no explanation of why activity 1 in fig 2 is a social learning activity. It is teacher led activity in the classroom but what is the social aspect? Please explain more about the social learning in the classroom because not all classroom learning can be classed as social learning. For me, it is the activity that makes the learning social.

The class is described as a mixed ability class but for me, the definition of mixed ability would be students from different levels e.g. HSK1, 2, and 3 etc. Perhaps the students should be described as high and low scoring because I think all the students are at the same recognised ability level, HSK 3.

When were the students interviewed? Was it after the study or during the study.

What software did you use to measure the Chinese LFP? Without mentioning the software or process it would be hard for researchers to replicate this procedure.

I do not understand what table 3 shows. Is table 3 an example of the written text above table 3. Perhaps a sentence to explain it would make it clearer. Also, the text box above table 3 needs a caption.

The results and discussion are interesting and seem logical. I just have a couple of suggestions.

Figure 5 needs explaining in more detail. Why did you select data from 6 learners and what is the purpose of showing this data.

Please explain the word cloud in figure 6 in terms of results.

There are a few typos that need correcting. For example, the sentence “Figure Error! No text of specified style in document.” and “figure 4.16” which does not exist.

The manuscript needs page numbers which would also make it easier to give you feedback.

I hope my feedback and suggestions will help you improve what I consider to be a very interesting, well-designed manuscript, and I would be willing to review the final draft.

Reviewer #2: This study is well-designed, with an appropriate and comprehensive literature review. However, the Introduction requires improvement in terms of flow. The concepts are presented in a disjointed manner without a clear connection between them. For example, the first paragraph discusses seamless learning, but the second paragraph shifts abruptly to vocabulary without any transitional elements. Similarly, the discussion transitions to the SCVL approach without making the relationship between these topics clear. Improving the clarity and logical flow of these sections will enhance the paper’s readability.

The paper’s overall formatting also needs revision. Issues such as the error message “Figure Error! No text of specified style in document...” and the lack of clarity in the tables and figures detract from the presentation. The authors should consider consulting other published papers for reference to improve the layout and presentation of visual elements. Furthermore, the statistical results need some formatting adjustments, such as italicizing symbols and ensuring appropriate spacing before and after symbols.

There appears to be a significant issue with the reported standard deviations (SD) in Tables 6 and 7, as the ranges are unusually large, suggesting potential errors. Please verify and report the correct values.

Lastly, it is important to clarify the application of The Lexical Frequency Profile (LFP) in this study. While LFP in English vocabulary studies relies on the word family count method, it is unclear whether the Chinese LFP used here is based on a word list organized by word families. Please provide additional details regarding this aspect to ensure clarity.

**********

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:  Atsushi Mizumoto

**********

[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-24-28347 review.docx

Dear Dr. Zhou,

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. This time round, we would like to see a clean version of your paper that is ready for acceptance. So, please read your revised version carefully to endure it is typo-free.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Jan 25 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.

• 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 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,

Lawrence Jun Zhang, Ph.D.

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.]

[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

Knowledge Building and Vocabulary Growth: Assessing the Impact of Seamless Chinese Vocabulary Learning for International Students

PONE-D-24-28347R2

Dear Dr. Zhou,

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,

Lawrence Jun Zhang, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments: