PONE-D-25-25397The Mediating Role of Positive Cognition in Connecting Life Meaning and Learning Motivation: A Cross-Sectional Study of Chinese College StudentsPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Zhu,

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 Jul 31 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,

Henri Tilga, PhD

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 the grant information you provided in the ‘Funding Information’ and ‘Financial Disclosure’ sections do not match.

When you resubmit, please ensure that you provide the correct grant numbers for the awards you received for your study in the ‘Funding Information’ section.

3. Thank you for uploading your study's underlying data set. Unfortunately, the repository you have noted in your Data Availability statement does not qualify as an acceptable data repository according to PLOS's standards.

At this time, please upload the minimal data set necessary to replicate your study's findings to a stable, public repository (such as figshare or Dryad) and provide us with the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers that may be used to access these data. For a list of recommended repositories and additional information on PLOS standards for data deposition, please see https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/recommended-repositories .

4. Please amend the manuscript submission data (via Edit Submission) to include author Zhiru Zhu.

5. Please amend your authorship list in your manuscript file to include author Zhi-ru Zhu.

6. Please remove your figures from within your manuscript file, leaving only the individual TIFF/EPS image files, uploaded separately. These will be automatically included in the reviewers’ PDF.

[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: Partly

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

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

The PLOS Data policy 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: No

**********

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: No

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 topic is interesting and meaningful. I think you can have an great improvement in the quality of the paper. Here are major poings for you and please see the details in the attached file.

1. Introduction is too long. There should be a new part "Literature Review"

2. Theoretical fundations (SDT) should be highlighted in a section in Literature Review.

3. The gap or the need for the study should be rewritten. The present version is not well developed in saying this point.

4. The instruments should be added some descriptions of validity and reliablity.

5. The findings should be given more space for mediation roles report. Correspondingly, the discussion part should say more about this report.

Reviewer #2: This study explores the mediating role of positive cognition in the relationship between life meaning and learning motivation among Chinese university students. The topic is timely and relevant, particularly within the context of growing interest in positive psychology, student well-being, and motivation research. The manuscript is generally well-written and organized, with a logical flow from introduction to discussion. However, several critical issues must be addressed to improve the manuscript's scientific rigor, clarity, and contribution to the field.

1. The conceptual rationale for using positive cognition as the sole mediator is underdeveloped. Why was positive cognition chosen over other potentially relevant mediators such as self-efficacy, resilience, or optimism? The manuscript lacks a detailed theoretical model illustrating the hypothesized relationships (figures). Inclusion of a theoretical model earlier would enhance clarity. I suggest to expand the theoretical justification for the choice of mediator. Consider integrating a broader theoretical lens (e.g., Self-Determination Theory, Broaden-and-Build Theory) to justify the mechanisms. The following article may help how to structure article and report methods. Du, M. & Ashraf, M. A. (2025). Antecedents of environmental protection participation intentions among Chinese adolescents: The perspectives of rational choice, moral norms, and supporting environment. British Educational Research Journal, 00, 1–25. https://doi.org/10.1002/berj.4168

2. The Learning Motivation Questionnaire’s extrinsic motivation subscale shows poor construct validity (AVE = 0.28). This raises concerns about the adequacy of this scale for capturing extrinsic motivation. In addition, Positive Cognition is operationalized through a single subscale (positive attention), which might not fully represent the broader construct of positive cognition.

3. Although bootstrapping was used, no justification was provided for the sample size’s adequacy in mediation analysis. Hierarchical regression analysis is appropriate, but more sophisticated mediation analysis using SEM or PROCESS macro would provide more robust insights.

4. The discussion sometimes overstates the findings, particularly regarding causality (e.g., phrases like “enhancing life meaning fosters...” imply causation, which is inappropriate for cross-sectional data).

The authors mention that 58.5% of the effect is mediated but fail to clarify whether this is a proportion of the standardized total effect or unstandardized. Figure 1 and Figure 2 are insufficiently detailed (e.g., missing p-values, standard errors).

5. Revise the manuscript for conciseness and consistency in terminology. Consider reorganizing or trimming redundant sections (especially in the Discussion and Limitations).

6. Several citations are from lesser-known journals or in Chinese; efforts should be made to include more international, high-impact sources if possible. The literature review is limited in its scope and in-depth analysis of the topic. Massive literature is available on meaning and learning motivation in Chinese and other nation's context.

Feng, W., Wu, P., Lv, S. et al. The relationship between meaning in life and self-regulated learning among college students: the mediating effect of psychological capital and the moderating effect of phubbing. BMC Psychol 13, 566 (2025).

Cheng, L., Chen, Q., & Zhang, F. (2021). Mediating effects of meaning in life on the relationship between general self-efficacy and nursing professional commitment in nursing students: A structural equation modeling approach. Medicine, 100(29), e26754. https://doi.org/10.1097/MD.0000000000026754

7. Why is Glossary added to the article? There is no need of glossary in academic journal article.

8. The abstract is too dense and technical; simplify and clarify mediation results for a broader audience.

9. Provide the questionnaire and other necessary data in supplementary materials.

**********

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.

Attachments

Attachment

Submitted filename: commented PONE-D-25-25397_reviewer.pdf

Meaning in life, positive cognition, and learning motivation: A mediational analysis among Chinese college students

PONE-D-25-25397R1

Dear Dr. Zhu,

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. For questions related to billing, please contact billing support .

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,

Henri Tilga, PhD

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

**********

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

**********

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

Reviewer #1: 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

**********

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

**********

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: thank you so much for this professional revision version, which has addressed all my concerns. I recommend it to be published.

**********

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

**********