Dear Dr. Nazim,

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.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Nov 07 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,

Ömer Gökhan Ulum

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. PLOS only allows data to be available upon request if there are legal or ethical restrictions on sharing data publicly. For more 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. 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.

We will update your Data Availability statement on your behalf to reflect the information you provide.

3. We note that you have referenced (

Atikler, A. (1997). The role of action research in self-development of an ELT teacher: A descriptive case study [Unpublished master's thesis] Bilkent University, Ankara.

Karaaslan, A.D. (2003). Teachers' perceptions of self-initiated professional development: A case study on Bakent University English Language teachers [Unpublished master thesis]. Middle East Technical University.

) which has currently not yet been accepted for publication. Please remove this from your References and amend this to state in the body of your manuscript: (ie “Bewick et al. [Unpublished]”) as detailed online in our guide for authors

http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-reference-style

[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: No

Reviewer #2: Partly

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? -->?>

Reviewer #1: No

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: No

**********

Reviewer #1: The study addressed a timely topic. However, there are major issues with it. Please see my comments below:

- There are many sentences within the text needing relevant citations. Please fix this problem throughout the manuscript.

- The gap the study is going to address need to be more highlighted in the introduction section. Moreover, the significance of the study should be discussed for different stakeholders in this section.

- If the authors use a researcher-made questionnaire to gain the data, how did they measured the construct validity of the questionnaire?

- The all steps to gather the data need to be reported in details. For example, it should be reported how the authors conducted the semi-structured interview.

- More information about the data analysis should be provided. Unfortunately, the procedures reported to analyze the qualitative data are vague. For example, it is not clear how the authors measured the reliability and validity of the obtained findings.

- The required information about the tables need to be added. Moreover, please make sure the tables are set in line with the guidelines of APA 7the edition.

- The qualitative results need to be presented in a common why in which the required analysis among the excerpts should be added to the text.

- The discussion part is not critical. In line with the literature, the authors should be justified the obtained findings in tune with the literature. Moreover, please discuss the theoretical and practical implications of the results in this part.

- The implications of the findings should be discussed by giving tangible examples how they can be used by different stakeholders.

- Given the limitations imposed on the study further suggestions for future study should be illuminated.

- The language of the manuscript should be improved by doing more comprehensive proofreading.

Reviewer #2: 1. In the introduction section, it is recommended to highlight the innovative aspects of this study to emphasize its unique contributions to the field.

2. In the second part of the literature review, when discussing the relationship between teachers and technology, many statements lack supporting literature or cite outdated sources. It is advised to incorporate recent studies, such as:

Shadiev, R., Reynolds, B. L., & Li, R. (2024). The Use of Digital Technology for Sustainable Teaching and Learning. Sustainability, 16(13), 5353. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16135353

Rezai, A., Soyoof, A., & Reynolds, B. L. (2024). Informal digital learning of English and EFL teachers’ job engagement: Exploring the mediating role of technological pedagogical content knowledge and digital competence. System, 122, 103276. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2024.103276

Gao, Y., Wang, Q., & Wang, X. (2024). Exploring EFL University Teachers’ Beliefs in Integrating ChatGPT and other Large Language Models in Language Education: A Study in China. Asia Pacific Journal of Education, 44(1), 29–44. DOI:10.1080/02188791.2024.2305173

3. In the questionnaire section, it is recommended to detail which original questionnaires were utilized and specify any modifications made based on the requirements of this study.

4. The content related to semi-structured interviews should be further expanded to provide a more comprehensive understanding of the interview process and findings.

5. It is suggested to add a dedicated section on data collection to clearly outline the procedures and methodologies employed in gathering data.

6. In the data analysis section, it is recommended to merge single sentences into cohesive paragraphs to enhance the clarity and flow of the analysis process.

7. In the research findings section, the amount of interview data presented under each dimension is excessive. It is advised to consolidate these interviews or distribute them across more dimensions for better organization and readability.

8. The discussion should be organized around the research questions and include relevant subheadings to ensure logical coherence and clarity in the analysis.

9. The final paragraph of the conclusion discusses pedagogical implications, which is also addressed in the last paragraph of the discussion section. It is recommended to merge these sections to avoid redundancy and streamline the presentation of pedagogical insights.

10. It is advised to limit each paragraph to a manageable number of words to improve the overall readability and maintain the reader’s engagement throughout the 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.

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.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Mar 14 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 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,

Ömer Gökhan Ulum

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

Reviewer #3: (No Response)

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions??>

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? -->?>

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: I Don't Know

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available??>

The PLOS Data policy

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: No

**********

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

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

Reviewer #1:  Thank you for allowing me to review your manuscript. After careful consideration, I regret to inform you that I cannot recommend this paper for publication in its current form. The study suffers from significant methodological flaws and lacks the rigor required for publication in this journal. Please see my comments below:

1. The research questions suggest the need for a mixed-methods approach, as they aim to explore both quantitative and qualitative dimensions of the phenomenon under investigation. However, the study design does not reflect this requirement. The authors have not adequately justified their choice of methodology, nor have they demonstrated how the chosen design aligns with the research objectives. Furthermore, the methodology section is cluttered with irrelevant and redundant information, which detracts from the clarity and coherence of the study. A well-structured methodology section should clearly outline the research design, justify its appropriateness, and avoid unnecessary details.

2. The participants section is disorganized and lacks critical information. It should focus on key elements such as the demographic characteristics of the participants, the sampling method (e.g., random sampling, purposive sampling), inclusion and exclusion criteria, and the process of obtaining informed consent. Instead, the current section is filled with extraneous details that do not contribute to understanding the study population. Additionally, the authors have not clarified how they recruited participants or ensured ethical considerations, such as confidentiality and voluntary participation. These omissions raise concerns about the transparency and reproducibility of the study.

3. The authors claim to have used a researcher-made questionnaire but fail to provide a theoretical foundation for its design. A well-constructed questionnaire should be grounded in established theories or frameworks, and its development process should be clearly documented. Moreover, the authors have not addressed the construct validity of the questionnaire, which is typically assessed through exploratory factor analysis (EFA) and confirmatory factor analysis (CFA). Without evidence of construct validity, the credibility of the quantitative findings is severely compromised. This is a major flaw that undermines the scientific rigor of the study.

4. The qualitative data analysis section is inadequately described. The authors have not specified which data analysis method (e.g., thematic analysis, grounded theory, content analysis) was used, nor have they provided a clear step-by-step account of the analysis process. Additionally, there is no discussion of how the reliability and validity of the qualitative findings were ensured. For example, the authors could have employed strategies such as triangulation, member checking, or inter-coder reliability to enhance the trustworthiness of their results. The lack of transparency in this section makes it difficult to assess the quality of the qualitative findings.

5. The presentation of the qualitative results is subpar and does not meet the standards expected in high-quality journals. The findings are not organized in a coherent manner, and there is insufficient integration of direct quotes or illustrative examples to support the authors' interpretations. I recommend that the authors consult established journals in their field to learn how to effectively present qualitative findings, including the use of thematic frameworks, tables, and narrative explanations.

6. The discussion section fails to adequately contextualize the findings within the existing literature. The authors have not sufficiently explained how their results align with or diverge from previous studies, nor have they addressed the theoretical and practical implications of their findings. A strong discussion should critically engage with the literature, highlight the contributions of the study, and acknowledge its limitations. The current discussion is superficial and does not provide a meaningful synthesis of the results.

Reviewer #2:  The article has significantly improved after revisions, with only a few areas requiring further modification. A minor revision is recommended. Specific suggestions are as follows:

1. In the abstract, it is recommended to include the data analysis methods to provide readers with a clearer understanding of the study's approach.

2. In the last paragraph of the introduction, it is suggested that the author state the overarching objective of the study first, and then naturally lead into the research questions.

3. In the “Population and Sample” section, provide details on the inclusion criteria for participants. Additionally, the current single paragraph is overly lengthy—split it into two paragraphs for better readability and clarity.

4. In the conclusion, the final paragraph is redundant as it repeats earlier statements. It is recommended to delete this paragraph to avoid repetition.

Reviewer #3:  The paper is very interesting, yet the following are to be considered:

1.Editing is recommended.

2.The word ‘discovering’ at the beginning of the third question is better changed to ‘finding out’.

3.Table 1 should immediately come after the reference on page 13.

4.Table 1 is messy and confusing. It is better to expand it so the details appear separated.

5.No need for the definite article ‘The’ in the titles of tables or figures.

6.Table 2 is not situated under the sentence that stated this point on p.21. On p. 22, there is another reference to Table 2.

7.I think the researchers mean ‘internal’ rather than ‘international’ in “Pearson’s coefficients were applied to check the international consistency of the”.

8.Table 2 shows that only 10 respondents to the first domain and 20 to the second domain while the researchers’ statement in the previous page does not make this point clear. Fix this issue, please.

9.Sections in the Results section should be numbered to align with the pre-set research questions.

10.The constrains and solutions in the Results sections need to appear in terms of recurrent themes.

11.The conclusion section should be divided into four sections as replies to the research questions.

12.Do not use the ampersand ‘&’ within the text as you have in “Gill et al. (2024) and Samek & Müller (2019) indicate that”. Use it only within the in-text citation.

13.There is some redundancy in some sections including the Conclusion section.

14.The list of references is to be reconsidered due to having some inconsistency in some references.

**********

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

Reviewer #3: Yes:  Nawal Fadhil Abbas

**********

[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.

Dear Dr. Nazim,

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.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Jun 04 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,

Ömer Gökhan Ulum

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.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

Reviewer #3: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions??>

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? -->?>

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: I Don't Know

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available??>

The PLOS Data policy

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

Reviewer #2: This manuscript has improved significantly after one round of revisions, with enhanced clarity, methodology, and structure. However, certain areas still require further refinement. Specific suggestions are outlined below.

1. In the first two paragraphs of the introduction, it is recommended to include more references from the past five years.

2. In the introduction, the last three paragraphs should be merged and concisely focus on the research design, innovations, and significance of this study.

3. In the literature review section, when discussing the application of AI in university language education, it is recommended to include some recent studies, such as:

-Rezai, A., Soyoof, A., & Reynolds, B. L. (2024). Disclosing the correlation between using ChatGPT and well‐being in EFL learners: Considering the mediating role of emotion regulation. European Journal of Education, 59(4), e12752. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/ejed.12752

-Wang, X., & Reynolds, B. L. (2024). Beyond the Books: Exploring Factors Shaping Chinese English Learners’ Engagement with Large Language Models for Vocabulary Learning.Education Sciences, 14(5), 496. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci14050496

4. In the "Research Design and Context" section, it is recommended to remove the statement about the significance of the study at the end of the paragraph. This section should focus solely on the research design and context, as the significance of the study has already been addressed at the end of the introduction.

5. In the methodology section, it is suggested to follow the logic of "research design - participants – instruments-data collection - data analysis."

6. The presentation of the conclusion section has some issues. It is recommended to structure it according to three dimensions: summarizing the research findings, identifying research limitations, and suggesting future research directions.

Reviewer #3: Dear author,

Thanks for addressing most of the comments left, yet some other issues need to fix:

1. Editing is still needed.

2. The four objectives should appear in the -ing form (you have three infinitive and one gerund).

3. Since the figure or table are identified by the number, there is no need for the definite article 'the' as in "The figure (1) and table (2)". The same mistake is repeated in other places. Fix all, please.

4.Still there is no consistency in writing the sources in the reference list. When there is an article from a journal, a colon is used after the volume and issue followed by the beginning and ending of the pages. Check all, please.

5. Some titles are not italicized in the reference list.

**********

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

Reviewer #3: Yes:  Nawal Fadhil Abbas

**********

[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

Dear Dr. Nazim,

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.

==============================

Reviewer 1

This manuscript has improved significantly after one round of revisions, with enhanced clarity, methodology, and structure. However, certain areas still require further refinement. Specific suggestions are outlined below.

1. In the first two paragraphs of the introduction, it is recommended to include more references from the past five years.

2. In the introduction, the last three paragraphs should be merged and concisely focus on the research design, innovations, and significance of this study.

3. In the literature review section, when discussing the application of AI in university language education, it is recommended to include some recent studies, such as:

-Rezai, A., Soyoof, A., & Reynolds, B. L. (2024). Disclosing the correlation between using ChatGPT and well‐being in EFL learners: Considering the mediating role of emotion regulation. European Journal of Education, 59(4), e12752. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/ejed.12752

-Wang, X., & Reynolds, B. L. (2024). Beyond the Books: Exploring Factors Shaping Chinese English Learners’ Engagement with Large Language Models for Vocabulary Learning.Education Sciences, 14(5), 496. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci14050496

4. In the "Research Design and Context" section, it is recommended to remove the statement about the significance of the study at the end of the paragraph. This section should focus solely on the research design and context, as the significance of the study has already been addressed at the end of the introduction.

5. In the methodology section, it is suggested to follow the logic of "research design - participants – instruments-data collection - data analysis."

6. The presentation of the conclusion section has some issues. It is recommended to structure it according to three dimensions: summarizing the research findings, identifying research limitations, and suggesting future research directions.

Reviewer 2

Dear author,

Thanks for addressing most of the comments left, yet some other issues need to fix:

1. Editing is still needed.

2. The four objectives should appear in the -ing form (you have three infinitive and one gerund).

3. Since the figure or table are identified by the number, there is no need for the definite article 'the' as in "The figure (1) and table (2)". The same mistake is repeated in other places. Fix all, please.

4.Still there is no consistency in writing the sources in the reference list. When there is an article from a journal, a colon is used after the volume and issue followed by the beginning and ending of the pages. Check all, please.

5. Some titles are not italicized in the reference list.

==============================

Please submit your revised manuscript by Jun 16 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,

Ömer Gökhan Ulum

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

Empowering EFL Teachers’ Perceptions of Generative AI-Mediated Self-Professionalism

PONE-D-24-28944R4

Dear Dr. Nazim,

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,

Ömer Gökhan Ulum

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments: