Time-on-task estimation for tasks lasting hours spread over multiple days

Kaden Hart; Christopher M. Warren; John Edwards

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0330758

Peer Review History

Original SubmissionAugust 13, 2024
26 Mar 2025 Decision Letter - Vineeta Khemchandani, Editor PONE-D-24-26297Time-on-task estimation for tasks lasting hours spread over multiple daysPLOS ONE Dear Dr. Hart, 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 May 10 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, Vineeta Khemchandani 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. Please ensure that you refer to Figures 5-8 in your text as, if accepted, production will need this reference to link the reader to the figure. 4. 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 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: 1. Might a correction in two data points shown in method section "33 students in an introductory computer programming course (CS1)......", We collected data on 106 student submissions......" 2. The research questions is clearly visible but the objective of the research not written clearly. 3. The implication of the research is to be added. 4. One Correlation Table might be added. Reviewer #2: Here are few important suggestions for modifications or changes in the manuscript: 1. Enhanced Methodology Section: Expand the methodology section to provide detailed information about the keystroke data collection process, including the specific tools used for recording, the duration of the data collection period, and how participant engagement was defined and measured. This will help readers better understand the rigor of your methods. 2. In-depth Analysis of Results: Include a more thorough analysis of the results, particularly the implications of overestimating time-on-task. Discuss potential psychological or contextual factors that may contribute to this overestimation, providing a deeper understanding of the findings. 3. Integrate Visual Aids: Consider adding visual aids such as graphs or tables that summarize key findings or display trends in time estimation versus actual time spent. This could make the results more accessible and impactful for readers. 4. Broader Implications and Future Directions: In the discussion section, emphasize the broader implications of your findings for educational practices and learning analytics. Suggest specific areas for future research that could expand on your work or explore related questions, thus guiding subsequent studies in the field. Please site few papers in your manuscript given as follows: 1. Novita, M., Saputro, N. D., Chauhan, A. S., & Waliyansyah, R. R. (2022). Digitalization of Education in the Implementation of Kurikulum Merdeka. KnE Social Sciences, 153-164. 2. Chauhan, A. S. (2022). Modeling and predicting student academic performance in higher education using data mining techniques. International Journal of Software Innovation (IJSI), 10(1), 1-10. 3. Sudirman, S., Rodríguez-Nieto, C. A., Dhlamini, Z. B., Chauhan, A. S., Baltaeva, U., Abubakar, A., ... & Andriani, M. (2023). Ways of thinking 3D geometry: exploratory case study in junior high school students. Polyhedron International Journal in Mathematics Education, 1(1), 15-34. 4. Chauhan, A. S., Singh, Y., & Soam, A. (2012). Effective Decision Making in Higher Educational Institutions Using Data Warehousing and Data Mining. Journal of Computer Science Engineering and Information Technology Research (JCSEITR), 2(1). ****** 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.0330758.r001
Revision 1
23 Jun 2025 Author Response Dear Editors, We are delighted at the opportunity to revise our paper and even more delighted with the comments we received from reviewers. We believe the paper is a far better offering to the community thanks to their insightful reviews. Below we reproduce specific comments along with the changes we made as a result. The resubmitted paper has a number of changes and additions. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. We updated file names and captions. Included .tex file in submition 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. Keystroke data is highly identifiable even after removing the identifying labels. This is because students type their name at the beginning of their files, and the keystroke data recreates that name. We can remove this but they have typed their name or other identifying information elsewhere. Even careful inspection can miss potentially identifiable information. USU’s institutional review board can be contacted at irb@usu.edu or 435-797-1821 Please ensure that you refer to Figures 5-8 in your text as, if accepted, production will need this reference to link the reader to the figure. Updated references to include in text. 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. We searched through https://retractiondatabase.org and did not find any retractions. Reviewer #1: Might a correction in two data points shown in method section "33 students in an introductory computer programming course (CS1)......", We collected data on 106 student submissions......" Fixed grammar (33 => Thirty-three). Clarified that there are 33 students and 106 assignment submissions (3.2 assignments per student). Reviewer #1: The research questions is clearly visible but the objective of the research not written clearly. The objective is to discover how accurate time estimates are for long tasks. To do this we needed to bridge the gap between short term time measures that are objective and long term time measures that are subjective. We added the following sentence to the end of introduction section to clarify this: “This paper contributes to time-estimate research by demonstrating methodology to obtain objective measures for long duration tasks in a case study exploring subjective time estimates to objective time estimates.” Reviewer #1: The implication of the research is to be added. The implication is that better objective measures of time can be found for long duration tasks. This would enable better research into human time perception. See paragraph three of conclusion. “Our study also enables research into whether additional theories of time awareness apply at larger time scales. For example…” Reviewer #1: One Correlation Table might be added. Added Table 2, the correlations we investigated are now easily accessible in one place. Reviewer #2: Enhanced Methodology Section: Expand the methodology section to provide detailed information about the keystroke data collection process, including the specific tools used for recording, the duration of the data collection period, and how participant engagement was defined and measured. This will help readers better understand the rigor of your methods. The ShowYourWork plugin was the tool we used for data collection. Added dates for the semesters. Added the engagement formula we used to section “Measurement of Actual Time Duration” and paragraph explaining its use. Reviewer #2: In-depth Analysis of Results: Include a more thorough analysis of the results, particularly the implications of overestimating time-on-task. Discuss potential psychological or contextual factors that may contribute to this overestimation, providing a deeper understanding of the findings. Second paragraph of Section Estimated Time is just this. We weren’t testing a specific cause, so I’m including reasons that may contribute. Added “The perception of doing homework could be worse than the reality of doing homework.” to section Pre-Sruvey Reviewer #2: Integrate Visual Aids: Consider adding visual aids such as graphs or tables that summarize key findings or display trends in time estimation versus actual time spent. This could make the results more accessible and impactful for readers. Time estimation vs actual time is fig 6. It is possible that the reviewers couldn’t see the figures because of formatting errors with file names. Reviewer #2: Broader Implications and Future Directions: In the discussion section, emphasize the broader implications of your findings for educational practices and learning analytics. Suggest specific areas for future research that could expand on your work or explore related questions, thus guiding subsequent studies in the field. Added the following 1. Students think homework is worse than it is. 2. Investigate other courses in the future, possible one per level: freshmen, sophomore, junior, senior. Do estimation errors change as students become more accustomed to college? Does accuracy change with experience? 3. Future research should investigate the general application of objective time measures for long duration tasks. To do this a model of engagement would need to be made for other contexts. Will self-estimates of task duration be overestimated like homework? Reviewer #2: Please site few papers in your manuscript given as follows: 1. Novita, M., Saputro, N. D., Chauhan, A. S., & Waliyansyah, R. R. (2022). Digitalization of Education in the Implementation of Kurikulum Merdeka. KnE Social Sciences, 153-164. 2. Chauhan, A. S. (2022). Modeling and predicting student academic performance in higher education using data mining techniques. International Journal of Software Innovation (IJSI), 10(1), 1-10. 3. Sudirman, S., Rodríguez-Nieto, C. A., Dhlamini, Z. B., Chauhan, A. S., Baltaeva, U., Abubakar, A., ... & Andriani, M. (2023). Ways of thinking 3D geometry: exploratory case study in junior high school students. Polyhedron International Journal in Mathematics Education, 1(1), 15-34. 4. Chauhan, A. S., Singh, Y., & Soam, A. (2012). Effective Decision Making in Higher Educational Institutions Using Data Warehousing and Data Mining. Journal of Computer Science Engineering and Information Technology Research (JCSEITR), 2(1). Response These papers are not related to time estimation or time estimation errors. We reviewed the first three and did not see the relevance to our research. I was unable to find the fourth. We would be happy to update the citations if we understood how they are related. Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Response to reviewers IRB.pdf https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0330758.r002
6 Aug 2025 Decision Letter - Vineeta Khemchandani, Editor Time-on-task estimation for tasks lasting hours spread over multiple days PONE-D-24-26297R1 Dear Dr. Hart, 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, Vineeta Khemchandani 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: No more comments from my site. The authors addressed all the comments. Accept the manuscript. This manuscript has highlighted some clear insight. ****** 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: Yes: Aurobindo Kar ******** https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0330758.r003
Formally Accepted
Acceptance Letter - Vineeta Khemchandani, Editor PONE-D-24-26297R1 PLOS ONE Dear Dr. Hart, 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 You will receive further instructions from the production team, including instructions on how to review your proof when it is ready. Please keep in mind that we are working through a large volume of accepted articles, so please give us a few days 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. You will receive an invoice from PLOS for your publication fee after your manuscript has reached the completed accept phase. If you receive an email requesting payment before acceptance or for any other service, this may be a phishing scheme. Learn how to identify phishing emails and protect your accounts at https://explore.plos.org/phishing. If we can help with anything else, please email us at customercare@plos.org. Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access. Kind regards, PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff on behalf of Dr. Vineeta Khemchandani Academic Editor PLOS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0330758.r004

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 .