How do various leadership practices affect professional learning communities? The mediating role of principals’ perceived trust by teachers

Xiaobo Gu; Zhihui Liu; Zhenyuan Hang

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0323055

Peer Review History

Original SubmissionJanuary 3, 2025
3 Jan 2025 Author Response https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0323055.r001
13 Feb 2025 Decision Letter - Agbotiname Lucky Imoize, Editor PONE-D-24-60309How do various leadership practices affect professional learning communities? The mediating role of principals’ perceived trust by teachersPLOS ONE Dear Dr. Liu, 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. ACADEMIC EDITOR: Minor revisions Please submit your revised manuscript by Mar 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, Agbotiname Lucky Imoize 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 research was funded by the National Social Science Fund of China (grant number: 20CSH033)]. 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. Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice. Additional Editor Comments: Dear Authors, Revise the paper according to the reviewers' comments and check the English for improvement. [Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.] Reviewers' comments: Reviewer's Responses to Questions Comments to the Author 1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions? The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ******** 2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: 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: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English? PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 5. Review Comments to the Author Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters) Reviewer #1: The manuscript is methodologically rigorous, addresses a relevant topic, and provides original contributions. While focused on the Chinese context, it meets the standards for publication. Emphasising global implications could further strengthen the discussion. Reviewer #2: Overall, I find this study to be well-designed and and clearly presented. The research addressed important gaps in the literature and provided valuable insights into the mechanism through which leadership practices influence professional learning communities. Below are my detailed comments and recommendations. Strengths of the Manuscript 1. Significance and Novelty: The study examined the influence of various leadership practices on PLCs and the mediating role of principals' perceived trust by teachers. This is an important area of research, given the increasing emphasis on PLCs in educational reform and the limited existing research on the mediating role of trust from the principal's perspective. The use of social exchange theory provided a suitable framework for understanding the relationship between leadership practices and PLCs. 2. Methodological Rigor: The study employed a quantitative research method, with a large sample size and robust statistical techniques, including four-step hierarchical regression, Shapley value decomposition, and bootstrap methods. These methods ensure the reliability and validity of the findings. The inclusion of CFA to validate constructs and the assessment of CMV demonstrate thoroughness in addressing potential biases. 3. Clear Presentation: The manuscript was well-organized with a clear structure that guided the reader through the research process. Each section, from the abstract to the discussion, is logically presented. The findings were clearly articulated, and the study's implications were discussed in a way that provided useful recommendations for practitioners and policymakers. Minor Issues and Suggestions 1. Some references were relatively old. I suggest the authors to add more recent studies, particularly those related to the relationships between leadership practices and PLCs, to enhance the timeliness of the research. 2. The description of control variables was brief. I suggest the authors to provide more detailed information about these variables. For example, what specific positions were included under "position"? What levels of schools were categorized under "school level"? Clarifying these details will help readers better understand the scope and precision of the study's control mechanisms. ****** 6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean? ). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files. If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public. Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy . Reviewer #1: No Reviewer #2: No ******** [NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.] While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/ . PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org . Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0323055.r002
Revision 1
7 Mar 2025 Author Response A detailed response to the reviewers' comments has also been submitted in document form, which provides a comprehensive overview of the changes made and addresses each point raised by the reviewers. Response to Reviewers Dear Editors, We wish to thank the anonymous reviewers for their careful reading of the manuscript and helpful comments. We believe we have used these comments in straightforward way to improve the research. Our detailed responses to the review comments are presented in a point by point format. Related changes are highlighted in red font in the main text. Reviewer 1 : Comments to the Author The manuscript is methodologically rigorous, addresses a relevant topic, and provides original contributions. While focused on the Chinese context, it meets the standards for publication. Emphasising global implications could further strengthen the discussion. Response: Thank you for the positive comments. We are pleased that our manuscript has been recognized for its methodological rigor and original contributions. We have taken your suggestion to heart and have revised the manuscript to better emphasize its global implications. Specifically, we have made the following changes in the “Introduction” “Conclusion and Discussion” and “Implications” sections, and have also added relevant international literature to support our views and findings. These revisions are aimed at enhancing the international impact of our study. (please see page 3/5/20/23). Introduction Section: We have added the following sentences to highlight the global relevance of our study: "Understanding how PLCs are fostered and developed in diverse settings, including China, can offer valuable insights for global educational reform efforts." (please see page 3). "By exploring these questions, the study not only enhances our understanding of PLCs within the Chinese educational context but also contributes to the broader global discourse on the role of principal leadership and trust in promoting the development of PLCs." (please see page 5). These additions emphasize that our research on PLCs in China can provide broader insights applicable to educational reforms worldwide. Conclusion and Discussion Section: We have expanded the discussion on the theoretical contributions of our study: "The findings enrich the international literature on the relationship between principal leadership and PLCs by offering valuable insights from the Chinese experience, contribute to the application of social exchange theory in explaining how leadership practices affect PLCs and introduce the noteworthy perspective of principals to research in this field. Importantly, these insights, grounded in the Chinese context, offer a potential foundation for understanding similar dynamics between leadership, trust, and PLCs development in diverse global educational settings." (please see page 20). This integration of Chinese educational practices with global research underscores the broader applicability of our findings. Implications Section: We have emphasized the broader applications of our study: "The present study has important implications for school leaders and policy makers, especially those in China, and suggests broader applications for educational settings globally." (please see page 23). By highlighting the broader applications, we aim to show that our research can inform educational practices beyond China. Reviewer 2 : Comments to the Author Overall, I find this study to be well-designed and and clearly presented. The research addressed important gaps in the literature and provided valuable insights into the mechanism through which leadership practices influence professional learning communities. This study is well-designed and clearly presented, addressing important gaps in the literature on how leadership practices influence PLCs through the mediating role of teachers' trust in principals. The use of social exchange theory and robust quantitative methods, including hierarchical regression and validation techniques, ensures the reliability and validity of the findings. The manuscript is logically structured, with clear articulation of findings and practical implications. Overall, this research makes a valuable contribution to the field. Response: Thank you for the positive comments. Minor Suggestions: Some references were relatively old. I suggest the authors to add more recent studies, particularly those related to the relationships between leadership practices and PLCs, to enhance the timeliness of the research. Response: Thank you for your suggestion. We have carefully reviewed our references and added several studies published in the past five years to enhance the timeliness and relevance of our research. The corresponding citations in the main text have been updated and highlighted in red to clearly indicate these changes. Minor Suggestions: The description of control variables was brief. I suggest the authors provide more detailed information about these variables. For example, what specific positions were included under "position"? What levels of schools were categorized under "school level"? Clarifying these details will help readers better understand the scope and precision of the study's control mechanisms. Response: Thank you for your suggestion. We have expanded the description of the control variables in the "Method" section to provide more clarity. The revised text is as follows: “Principals' gender (1 = male, 2 = female), age (1 = ≥51; 2 = 41–50; 3 = ≤40), position (1 = elementary schools; 2 = middle schools; 3 = high schools; 4 = other schools), school level (1 = elementary schools; 2 = middle schools; 3 = high schools; 4 = other schools), geographic location (1 = urban areas; 2 = suburban and rural areas), and school type (1 = model school; 2 = ordinary school) were included in the questionnaire as control variables. These control variables were transformed into dummy variables and then added to the data analysis.” (please see page 13). Please include a copy of Table 3 which you refer to in your text on page 18. Response: Thank you for your attention to our manuscript. We have reviewed the content and found that the table caption "Mediation analysis of principals' perceived trust by teachers on the relationships between leadership practice components and PLCs" was incorrectly labeled as Table 2. Following your guidance, we have now corrected this to Table 3. Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.doc https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0323055.r003
1 Apr 2025 Decision Letter - Agbotiname Lucky Imoize, Editor How do various leadership practices affect professional learning communities? The mediating role of principals’ perceived trust by teachers PONE-D-24-60309R1 Dear Dr. Liu, 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, Agbotiname Lucky Imoize Academic Editor PLOS ONE Additional Editor Comments (optional): The manuscript is acceptable in its current form. 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 #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 adequately addressed my comments raised previously. I have no other comments. I think the paper can be published in its current form. ****** 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: No ******** https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0323055.r004
Formally Accepted
Acceptance Letter - Agbotiname Lucky Imoize, Editor PONE-D-24-60309R1 PLOS ONE Dear Dr. Liu, 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 Mr. Agbotiname Lucky Imoize Academic Editor PLOS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0323055.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 .