Job satisfaction mediates the effect of self-efficacy on work engagement among physical education teachers in economically disadvantaged areas

Hongping Zhou; Shi Qi Xu; Dong-Hwa Chung; De Xin Dang

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0321055

Peer Review History

Original SubmissionOctober 25, 2024
25 Oct 2024 Author Response https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0321055.r001
16 Dec 2024 Decision Letter - Mc Rollyn Daquiado Vallespin, Editor PONE-D-24-42818Job satisfaction mediates effect of self-efficacy on work engagement for teachers in economically disadvantaged areasPLOS ONE Dear Dr. Xu, 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. Below, I have outlined the revisions needed: A.Title and Scope Clarification The title should be revised to reflect that the study is focused on physical education teachers in a specific context. The introduction, literature review, abstract, discussion, and conclusions should consistently emphasize that the findings are limited to physical education teachers and the specific sample used in the study. This will help avoid contradictions regarding the generalizability of the study. B.Sample and Methodology Sample Size Calculation: The method used for calculating the sample size should be clearly explained to enhance transparency and methodological rigor. Study Scope: There is concern about the limited scope of the study, which focuses solely on physical education teachers, while the manuscript suggests a broader scope. The authors should clarify this limitation throughout the manuscript. Inclusion and Exclusion Criteria: The inclusion and exclusion criteria for the study should be stated clearly in the methodology section to ensure proper understanding of the study's sample. C.Data and Results Presentation Presentation of Results: The results section should avoid unscientific language (e.g., "investigation" and "educationally") and ensure that terms are precise and adhere to scientific standards. Questionnaire and Data Analysis: The questionnaire could be placed in an appendix rather than as a table within the main text. The validity and reliability of the questionnaire need to be addressed, particularly if it is to be applied in other contexts. A detailed explanation of the factors considered in the analysis should be provided. Standardization of Data: There are discrepancies in the data presented, such as inconsistencies in table formatting and numerical values. The authors should standardize the data and correct errors in presentation. D.Introduction and Literature Review Tighten Introduction: The introduction is overly long and should be shortened to improve clarity and focus. It should directly address the research gap and the study's objectives. Literature Review: Redundant content between the introduction and literature review should be removed to improve the flow and coherence of the manuscript. The literature review should also integrate findings relevant to the specific context of physical education. E.Formatting and Structural Issues Formatting: The manuscript should adhere to PLOS ONE guidelines, particularly regarding formatting issues such as authors' affiliations on the title page, indentation in paragraphs, and titles. Proper attention to these details is necessary to ensure the manuscript meets submission standards. Abbreviations: Ensure that all abbreviations are fully spelled out the first time they are used in the manuscript. Figures and Tables: All figures should meet the PLOS ONE guidelines. It is suggested that Tables 6-11 be consolidated into a single table for better clarity. Figures and tables should also be clearly labeled and referenced within the text. F.Discussion and Conclusion Discussion of Results: The discussion section should not merely repeat results but should interpret the findings in light of existing literature. It should highlight the implications of the findings, including any possible generalizations, and discuss the significance of the results. Conclusions: The conclusions should be grounded in the study's findings and should avoid overstatements. Recommendations should be specific and related to the study context, such as suggestions for improving laboratory conditions or teaching practices in physical education. G.Typographical and Grammatical Corrections The manuscript contains numerous typographical, grammatical, and small formatting errors. The authors are encouraged to thoroughly revise the manuscript to ensure proper language use and consistency throughout the document. Please submit your revised manuscript by Jan 30 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, Mc Rollyn Daquiado Vallespin Academic Editor PLOS ONE Journal Requirements: 1. When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf 2. Thank you for stating the following financial disclosure: [This study was supported by a grant from the National Social Science Fund of China (Research on the Occupational Ecological Dilemma and Collaborative Governance of Rural Physical Education Teachers in the New Era; agreement number 21BTY101)]. Please state what role the funders took in the study. If the funders had no role, please state: "The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript." If this statement is not correct you must amend it as needed. Please include this amended Role of Funder statement in your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf. 3. In this instance it seems there may be acceptable restrictions in place that prevent the public sharing of your minimal data. However, in line with our goal of ensuring long-term data availability to all interested researchers, PLOS’ Data Policy states that authors cannot be the sole named individuals responsible for ensuring data access (http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-acceptable-data-sharing-methods ). Data requests to a non-author institutional point of contact, such as a data access or ethics committee, helps guarantee long term stability and availability of data. Providing interested researchers with a durable point of contact ensures data will be accessible even if an author changes email addresses, institutions, or becomes unavailable to answer requests. Before we proceed with your manuscript, please also provide non-author contact information (phone/email/hyperlink) for a data access committee, ethics committee, or other institutional body to which data requests may be sent. If no institutional body is available to respond to requests for your minimal data, please consider if there any institutional representatives who did not collaborate in the study, and are not listed as authors on the manuscript, who would be able to hold the data and respond to external requests for data access? If so, please provide their contact information (i.e., email address). Please also provide details on how you will ensure persistent or long-term data storage and availability. 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? The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes Reviewer #3: Yes ******** 2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes Reviewer #3: 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 Reviewer #3: 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 Reviewer #3: 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: All comments and observations on the work presented by the authors can be found in detail in the attached file. Authors are requested to pay attention to each of the annotations to ensure the quality and clarity of the manuscript. Reviewer #2: 1. Perhaps the questionnaire should be placed in an appendix rather than a table in the text. 2. Why physical education teachers and not other teachers? The introduction and review of the literature are about teachers and not specifically physical education teachers. 3. The reference to teachers throughout the text contradicts the restricted sample of physical education teachers used in this study. If any, the findings of this study are limited to physical education teachers only, which you acknowledge in the limitations section. 4. Thus, the title should clearly state “… for physical education teachers in…” and the abstract, introduction, review of the literature, discussion, conclusions, and all relevant sections should reflect this fact. Reviewer #3: Respected Authors, The overall quality of your scientific research is good. However, there are some unscientific words like investigation and educationally in the results section. Secondly, your introduction is so long that it becomes boring. Please tighten up your introduction section. Thirdly, please explain the sample size calculation method used for selecting your study sample. Fourthly, there are some formatting issues with your manuscript, like the authors' affiliations on the title page, indents in the first lines of each and every paragraph, and even some titles. Please review PLOS ONE guidelines to adjust them accordingly. Fifthly, include full descriptions when you are citing the abbreviations for the first time. Sixthly, please ensure all your figures meet the PLOS ONE guidelines. ****** 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. Ali M. AL-Asadi Reviewer #3: Yes: Dr. Saira Akhlaq ******** [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-24-42818_reviewer_120124.pdf https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0321055.r002
Revision 1
7 Feb 2025 Author Response Dear editor and honored reviewers We really appreciate you and the reviewers for your comments on our Manuscript: “Job satisfaction mediates the effect of self-efficacy on work engagement among physical education teachers in economically disadvantaged areas” We express our sincere gratitude and thankfulness for your time and precision in reviewing our manuscript. The responses to the comments are as follows. For your kind information, we have carefully dealt with the comments of the reviewers as follows. We hope the revised manuscript meets the standard of publication. Thank you. A.Title and Scope Clarification The title should be revised to reflect that the study is focused on physical education teachers in a specific context. The introduction, literature review, abstract, discussion, and conclusions should consistently emphasize that the findings are limited to physical education teachers and the specific sample used in the study. This will help avoid contradictions regarding the generalizability of the study. Response: Thank you for your valuable comments. Based on the editor’s and reviewers’ feedback, we have revised the title to: Job satisfaction mediates the effect of self-efficacy on work engagement among physical education teachers in economically disadvantaged areas. Moreover, we have emphasized that this study is limited to physical education teachers in economically disadvantaged areas in the introduction, literature review, abstract, and other relevant sections. The overall manuscript has been revised to eliminate contradictions regarding the study’s generalizability, as you mentioned. Thanks so much. B.Sample and Methodology • Sample Size Calculation: The method used for calculating the sample size should be clearly explained to enhance transparency and methodological rigor. Response: Thank you for your valuable comments. We have declared the method used for calculating the sample size. “Before participation, all respondents were informed about the survey’s purpose and provided written informed consent. Data collection occurred from 21 March 2022 to 28 May 2023. The sample size was determined using PASS software (version 15.0.5) with a two-sided confidence interval method. A confidence interval width of 0.1, a confidence level of 0.95, an acceptance rate of 50%, and a dropout rate of 10% were used, indicating that at least 428 valid questionnaires were needed. The 472 valid responses exceeded the required sample size [104,105].” Please refer to Line 224-229. Thanks so much. • Study Scope: There is concern about the limited scope of the study, which focuses solely on physical education teachers, while the manuscript suggests a broader scope. The authors should clarify this limitation throughout the manuscript. Response: Thank you for your valuable comments. We have emphasized throughout the manuscript that this study is limited to physical education teachers in economically disadvantaged areas. Additionally, we have acknowledged this limitation. Please refer to Line 329-332. “First, the sample was limited to PE teachers in economically disadvantaged areas of Hubei Province, China, which restricts the generalizability of the findings to PE teachers in economically disadvantaged areas worldwide. Future research should include a more diverse and geographically representative sample to enhance external validity.” Please check it. Thanks so much. • Inclusion and Exclusion Criteria: The inclusion and exclusion criteria for the study should be stated clearly in the methodology section to ensure proper understanding of the study's sample. Response: Thank you for your valuable comments. We have disclosed the inclusion and exclusion criteria in Lines 220–222. “Inclusion criteria required participants to have at least one year of teaching experience and be willing to participate in the survey. Exclusion criteria included dissatisfaction with participation, non-teaching staff, administrators, and incomplete or unreliable responses.” Please check it on the Line 220-222. Thanks so much. C.Data and Results Presentation • Presentation of Results: The results section should avoid unscientific language (e.g., "investigation" and "educationally") and ensure that terms are precise and adhere to scientific standards. Response: Thank you for your valuable comments. We had two native speakers review and revise the manuscript for grammar. The mistakes you mentioned have been corrected. We hope the grammar now meets your expectations. Thanks so much. • Questionnaire and Data Analysis: The questionnaire could be placed in an appendix rather than as a table within the main text. The validity and reliability of the questionnaire need to be addressed, particularly if it is to be applied in other contexts. A detailed explanation of the factors considered in the analysis should be provided. Response: Thank you for your valuable comments. We agree with your feedback. The questionnaire has been submitted as a supplementary file. Additionally, the validity and reliability analysis of the questionnaire is provided in Lines 260–266. “Factor analysis of self-efficacy (S1 Fig), job satisfaction (S2 Fig), and work engagement (S3 Fig) revealed no questions with low factor loading values, confirming the adequacy of the measurement items. The Cronbach’s α coefficients for all factors supported the internal consistency of the scales. Additionally, the convergent and discriminant validity statistics showed that the average variance extracted and composite reliability values for all multi-item scales exceeded the thresholds of 0.5 and 0.8, respectively, indicating satisfactory convergent validity for the measurement model.” Please check it. Thanks so much. For a detailed explanation of the factors considered in the analysis, please see the Statistical Analysis section in Lines 232–235. “The validity and reliability of the questionnaire were assessed through confirmatory factor analysis and Cronbach’s α [106]. Convergent validity was deemed satisfactory for multi-item scales if the average variance extracted value exceeded 0.5 and composite reliability exceeded 0.8 [107].” Thanks so much. • Standardization of Data: There are discrepancies in the data presented, such as inconsistencies in table formatting and numerical values. The authors should standardize the data and correct errors in presentation. Response: Thank you for your valuable comments. We sincerely apologize for the data-related mistake. The manuscript has been thoroughly checked, and the relevant errors have been corrected. Thanks so much. D.Introduction and Literature Review • Tighten Introduction: The introduction is overly long and should be shortened to improve clarity and focus. It should directly address the research gap and the study's objectives. Response: Thank you for your valuable comments. We have restructured the Introduction section to enhance clarity and focus. Please refer to Lines 32–48. Thanks so much. • Literature Review: Redundant content between the introduction and literature review should be removed to improve the flow and coherence of the manuscript. The literature review should also integrate findings relevant to the specific context of physical education. Response: Thank you for your valuable comments. We have removed redundant content between the Introduction and Literature Review sections, as you suggested. Furthermore, we have incorporated relevant findings related to physical education into the literature review. Please check it. Thanks so much. E.Formatting and Structural Issues • Formatting: The manuscript should adhere to PLOS ONE guidelines, particularly regarding formatting issues such as authors' affiliations on the title page, indentation in paragraphs, and titles. Proper attention to these details is necessary to ensure the manuscript meets submission standards. Response: Thank you for your valuable comments. We have reformatted the manuscript to comply with the style guidelines of PLOS ONE. We apologize for the previous formatting errors. • Abbreviations: Ensure that all abbreviations are fully spelled out the first time they are used in the manuscript. Response: Thank you for your valuable comments. We have ensured that all abbreviations are fully spelled out upon first mention in the manuscript. Thanks so much. • Figures and Tables: All figures should meet the PLOS ONE guidelines. It is suggested that Tables 6-11 be consolidated into a single table for better clarity. Figures and tables should also be clearly labeled and referenced within the text. Response: Thank you for your valuable comments. The citation style has been revised to adhere to the PLOS ONE format. Additionally, we do not have Tables 6–11. All figures and tables are now clearly labeled and properly referenced in the manuscript Please check it. Thanks so much. F.Discussion and Conclusion • Discussion of Results: The discussion section should not merely repeat results but should interpret the findings in light of existing literature. It should highlight the implications of the findings, including any possible generalizations, and discuss the significance of the results. Response: Thank you for your valuable comments. We have reorganized the Discussion section. Please check this part. Thanks so much. • Conclusions: The conclusions should be grounded in the study's findings and should avoid overstatements. Recommendations should be specific and related to the study context, such as suggestions for improving laboratory conditions or teaching practices in physical education. Response: Thank you for your valuable comments. We have revised the Conclusion section. The suggested contributions have been integrated into the Research Contribution section. Please check it. Thanks so much. G.Typographical and Grammatical Corrections The manuscript contains numerous typographical, grammatical, and small formatting errors. The authors are encouraged to thoroughly revise the manuscript to ensure proper language use and consistency throughout the document. Response: Thank you for your valuable comments. We had two native speakers review the grammar of this manuscript. Additionally, we reformatted the manuscript according to PLOS ONE guidelines. Please check it. Thanks so much. Journal Requirements: 1. When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements. 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 Response: Thank you for your valuable comments. We have reformatted the manuscript to comply with the style guidelines of PLOS ONE. We apologize for the previous formatting errors. 2. Thank you for stating the following financial disclosure: [This study was supported by a grant from the National Social Science Fund of China (Research on the Occupational Ecological Dilemma and Collaborative Governance of Rural Physical Education Teachers in the New Era; agreement number 21BTY101)]. 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. Response: Thank you for your valuable comments. This statement was incorrect. The correct statement is: “Hongping Zhou: original draft, conceptualization, methodology, validation, formal analysis, data curation, writing - review & editing, supervision, project administration; De Xin Dang: project administration, methodology, writing - original draft, conceptualization; Shi Qi Xu: writing - original draft, writing - review & editing, supervision, project administration, methodology; Dong-Hwa Chung: project administration, methodology, formal analysis” We have disclosed this information in the Author Contributions section. Please check it. Thanks so much. 3. In this instance it seems there may be acceptable restrictions in place that prevent the public sharing of your minimal data. However, in line with our goal of ensuring long-term data availability to all interested researchers, PLOS’ Data Policy states that authors cannot be the sole named individuals responsible for ensuring data access (http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-acceptable-data-sharing-methods). Data requests to a non-author institutional point of contact, such as a data access or ethics committee, helps guarantee long term stability and availability of data. Providing interested researchers with a durable point of contact ensures data will be accessible even if an author changes email addresses, institutions, or becomes unavailable to answer requests. Before we proceed with your manuscript, please also provide non-author contact information (phone/email/hyperlink) for a data access committee, ethics committee, or other institutional body to which data requests may be sent. If no institutional body is available to respond to requests for your minimal data, please consider if there any institutional representatives who did not collaborate in the study, and are not listed as authors on the manuscript, who would be able to hold the data and respond to external requests for data access? If so, please provide their contact information (i.e., email address). Please also provide details on how you will ensure persistent or long-term data storage and availability. Response: Thank you for your valuable comments. We are happy to share our data. All data used for this survey are available at figshare at https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.28365692.v1. Please check it. Thanks so much. 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. Response: Thank you for your valuable comments. We have added captions for the supporting information files at the end of the manuscript. Please refer to Line 654-658. Thanks so much. 5. Review Comments to the Author Reviewer #1: All comments and observations on the work presented by the authors can be found in detail in the attached file. Authors are requested to pay attention to each of the annotations to ensure the quality and clarity of the manuscript. Line 26: Search for other keywords, 4 of the 5 listed are included in the title. Response: Thank you for your valuable comments. We have revised the keywords to: rural teacher, rural education, teacher motivation, educational policy, burnout prevention Please refer to Line 30. Thanks so much. Line 35-36: Add citation. Response: Thank you for your valuable comments. We have added a reference for this sentence. Please refer to Line 37-38. Thanks so much. “Consequently, enhancing the work engagement of PE teachers in economically disadvantaged areas has become a focal point for many scholars [5].” Please check it. Thanks again. Line 48: engagement Response: Thank you for your valuable comments. The relevant mistake has been corrected. Thanks so much. Line 71-72: Rewrite, it is equal to lines 38 and 39. Response: Thank you for your valuable comments. We have removed these sections based on the editor’s feedback. Thanks so much. Line 78-79: Rewrite, it is equal to line 40. Response: Thank you for your valuable comments. We have removed these sections based on the editor’s feedback. Thanks so much. Line 130: “extrinsic” not intrinsic. Response: Thank you for your valuable comments. The relevant mistake has been corrected. Please check the Line 87. Thanks so much. Line 161-164: The citation does not correspond to what is written in the paragraph. Response: Thank you for your valuable comments. We have corrected this ref Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0321055.r003
3 Mar 2025 Decision Letter - Mc Rollyn Daquiado Vallespin, Editor Job satisfaction mediates the effect of self-efficacy on work engagement among physical education teachers in economically disadvantaged areas PONE-D-24-42818R1 Dear Dr. XU, 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, Mc Rollyn Daquiado Vallespin Academic Editor PLOS ONE Additional Editor Comments (optional): Reviewers' comments: Reviewer's Responses to Questions Comments to the Author 1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation. Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed ******** 2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions? The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: 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: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 6. Review Comments to the Author Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters) Reviewer #1: The authors have addressed all of the reviewers' comments to improve the quality and clarity of the manuscript, and I therefore give my approval for publication. Reviewer #2: I thank the authors for addressing all my comments adequately and appropriately. I have no further comments. ****** 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: Ali M. AL-Asadi ******** https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0321055.r004
Formally Accepted
Acceptance Letter - Mc Rollyn Daquiado Vallespin, Editor PONE-D-24-42818R1 PLOS ONE Dear Dr. Xu, I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now being handed over to our production team. At this stage, our production department will prepare your paper for publication. This includes ensuring the following: * All references, tables, and figures are properly cited * All relevant supporting information is included in the manuscript submission, * There are no issues that prevent the paper from being properly typeset If revisions are needed, the production department will contact you directly to resolve them. If no revisions are needed, you will receive an email when the publication date has been set. At this time, we do not offer pre-publication proofs to authors during production of the accepted work. Please keep in mind that we are working through a large volume of accepted articles, so please give us a few weeks to review your paper and let you know the next and final steps. Lastly, if your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org. If we can help with anything else, please email us at customercare@plos.org. Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access. Kind regards, PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff on behalf of Dr. Mc Rollyn Daquiado Vallespin Academic Editor PLOS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0321055.r005

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 .