Dear Dr. Grinnell,

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.

 After careful consideration of the reviewers' feedback, I have determined that only minor revisions are required at this stage. Please revise the manuscript accordingly and submit the updated version along with a detailed response to the reviewers' comments. We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

 ==============================

Please submit your revised manuscript by Jun 05 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 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,

Mohammad Ali Yousef Yamin, 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. Please update your submission to use the PLOS LaTeX template. The template and more information on our requirements for LaTeX submissions can be found at "http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/latex"

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 (if provided):

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: 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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

Reviewer #1: The abstract needs revision to enhance clarity, coherence, and alignment with academic standards. Please address the following:

1. The objective of the study is not clearly stated at the beginning. Please explicitly state the research question or purpose of the study in the first 1–2 sentences.

2. Strengthen the final statement by summarizing how your findings contribute to existing knowledge or suggest practical implications for science fair program development.

The introduction presents useful background information but requires revision for better clarity, coherence, and focus. Please consider the following specific suggestions:

1. While the context of SEFs is well-described, the specific research gap and aim of this study are buried in the last paragraph. Please clearly articulate the research objective and contribution earlier in the introduction (ideally in the second or third paragraph).

2. some points (e.g., the benefits of coaching/help from scientists, and participation differences by demographics) are repeated multiple times. Keep these concise and focused for the introduction and elaborate in the results/discussion section.

The Materials and Methods section is generally informative, but the following revisions are necessary to enhance clarity, rigor, and replicability:

1. While a 3% response rate is acknowledged, this low rate may raise concerns about response bias. Please briefly discuss potential limitations this poses for generalizability.

2. The mention of chi-square testing is brief. Please specify (Which variables were tested for association. Whether assumptions for the chi-square test (e.g., minimum expected cell counts) were checked.

The Discussion section provides thoughtful insights and successfully interprets both qualitative and quantitative findings. However, the section would benefit from clearer organization, strengthened coherence, and a deeper discussion of implications. Below are detailed suggestions:

1. Repetition of certain statistics ( number of comments, percentages) can be reduced in the discussion since they were already reported earlier.

2. The limitation regarding geographic coverage (seven states) is mentioned, but its potential effect on the findings ( regional variation in STEM programs, demographics) should be briefly discussed to show awareness of context sensitivity.

3. Discuss the potential for targeted interventions to support underrepresented groups, such as Black students, who reported less benefit from SEF participation.

Reviewer #2: Dear Author/s

Thank you for the opportunity to review your manuscript. I would like to commend your efforts in addressing an important and timely topic related to Science and Engineering Fair (SEF) participation and its impact on students’ interest in STEM fields.

I have provided a set of detailed comments and constructive suggestions, organized by each section of the manuscript. These observations are intended to enhance the clarity, coherence, theoretical grounding, and overall academic rigor of your paper.

Please note that these revisions are not meant to undermine your valuable contributions, but rather to help strengthen the quality of your research and ensure it meets the highest standards of scholarly publication. Addressing these points carefully will not only improve the impact of your study but also help readers better understand the implications of your findings.

Abstract

� The abstract should include a clear statement of the study’s purpose or research question.

� Underdeveloped Implications, the significance of the findings and their implications for educators, policymakers, or STEM programs are not clearly stated. Please try to refrase it to show your implications

Introduction

- The introduction should clearly define the research gap the current study seeks to address.

- Explicitly stating the research questions or hypotheses would help define the focus of the study.

Materials and Methods

- While the paper acknowledges that the data only come from seven U.S. states, it should provide more detail about student demographics and SEF contexts within those states.

- The survey’s evolution is described, but a summary of the key question categories in the main text (not only the appendix) would aid understanding.

- A 3% response rate is mentioned as typical for this format, but a brief discussion on how non-response bias might affect findings would be valuable.

Results

Ethnic and Grade-Level Differences are mentioned, but clearer comparative analysis (perhaps with tables) would improve readability and interpretation. Optional)

While chi-square results are reported, actual test statistics are not included. Adding these would improve transparency.

Discussion

The potential impact of SEF structures (e.g. school-only vs. district-level fairs) on student outcomes is mentioned but could be developed into concrete recommendations.

Conclusion

Please ensure that the conclusion directly aligns with the objectives stated (or to be stated) in the introduction.

general recommendation

The paper presents important insights and has the potential to contribute meaningfully to the literature on science fairs and student motivation in STEM. However, revisions are necessary to improve theoretical framing, clarity, and analytic depth. I recommend major revisions before the paper is considered for publication

**********

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: Yes:  . Mohammad Ibrahim Sweiss

Reviewer #2: Yes:  nour taher Alaqra

**********

[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

High School Science Fair: What Students Say -- Mastery, Performance, and Self-Determination Theory

PONE-D-25-09082R1

Dear Dr. Frederick Grinnell

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,

Mohammad Ali Yousef Yamin, Ph.D

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments: