Dear Dr. YANDI,

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 Sep 17 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,

Zülbiye KAÇAY, assoc. prof.

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 note that your Data Availability Statement is currently missing [the repository name and/or the DOI/accession number of each dataset OR a direct link to access each database]. If your manuscript is accepted for publication, you will be asked to provide these details on a very short timeline. We therefore suggest that you provide this information now, though we will not hold up the peer review process if you are unable.

3. When completing the data availability statement of the submission form, you indicated that you will make your data available on acceptance. We strongly recommend all authors decide on a data sharing plan before acceptance, as the process can be lengthy and hold up publication timelines. Please note that, though access restrictions are acceptable now, your entire data will need to be made freely accessible if your manuscript is accepted for publication. This policy applies to all data except where public deposition would breach compliance with the protocol approved by your research ethics board. If you are unable to adhere to our open data policy, please kindly revise your statement to explain your reasoning and we will seek the editor's input on an exemption. Please be assured that, once you have provided your new statement, the assessment of your exemption will not hold up the peer review process.

4. Your ethics statement should only appear in the Methods section of your manuscript. If your ethics statement is written in any section besides the Methods, please move it to the Methods section and delete it from any other section. Please ensure that your ethics statement is included in your manuscript, as the ethics statement entered into the online submission form will not be published alongside your manuscript.

5. If the reviewer comments include a recommendation to cite specific previously published works, please review and evaluate these publications to determine whether they are relevant and should be cited. There is no requirement to cite these works unless the editor has indicated otherwise. 

Additional Editor Comments:

Thank you for submitting your manuscript, “Turkish Adaptation of The New TDSTECH Scale”, to PLOS ONE. Your work addresses an important and timely topic, and your commitment to methodological rigor, particularly the adherence to ITC’s test adaptation guidelines, is commendable.

Both reviewers acknowledged the technical strength of your study, as well as the relevance and originality of your contribution. However, to improve the clarity, readability, and completeness of your manuscript, several substantial revisions are necessary before it can be considered for publication.

Please consider the following essential points in your revision:

Language and Clarity: The manuscript requires comprehensive language editing by a native English speaker or professional editing service. This includes improving sentence structure, eliminating redundancy, and enhancing overall clarity.

Abstract:

Avoid repetitive sentences.

Include key statistical results from your analyses.

Do not cite or mention the original scale in the abstract.

Title: Avoid using acronyms (e.g., TDSTECH) in the title. Use the full name of the scale instead.

Formatting:

Remove the Biography section (not part of PLOS ONE article structure).

Use reference citation numbers in square brackets, per journal style (e.g., [12]).

Introduction: Shorten the section for better readability. Aim for clearer and more concise paragraph structure.

Method Section:

Move the data collection period from the Ethics section to the beginning of the Methods.

Streamline overly detailed descriptions; some procedural information is better summarized.

Clearly explain how the sample size was determined.

Ensure that all analysis results (e.g., CFA fit indices) are moved to the Results section.

Results Section:

Address the high chi-square/df ratio (15.15), which diverges from fit standards, even though other indices are acceptable. This discrepancy should be acknowledged and discussed.

Discussion Section:

Currently missing. Please include a well-developed discussion that compares your findings with existing literature, explains your model fit outcomes, and provides practical implications.

Conclusion:

Go beyond summarizing the study. Include insights on the significance of findings and recommendations for future research.

Student-Interface Interaction:

Clarify and contextualize this concept specifically within Turkish distance education culture, as suggested by Reviewer 2.

Technical Edits:

Page 29 appears blank—please review and correct.

We appreciate your contribution and look forward to receiving a carefully revised version of your manuscript that addresses these issues in full.

[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: 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: No

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

Reviewer #1: Thank you for your submission. Your study addresses a timely and relevant topic—the adaptation of the new TDSTECH scale to Turkish culture in the context of distance education.

The research is grounded in a solid theoretical framework, follows internationally recognized test adaptation guidelines, and applies robust statistical analyses with a large and diverse sample. These are significant strengths that enhance the study's credibility.

However, the manuscript requires major revisions before it can be considered for publication. Below are my detailed comments and suggestions:

-It is recommended that the article should be reviewed by a native English speaker.

-It may be more appropriate to avoid repetitive sentences in the abstract and instead provide numerical data related to the results.

-It is not necessary to cite or include the original article on the scale in the abstract.

-According to the journal submission guideline, biography is not one of the sections of the article.

-The introduction is too long. The paragraphs themselves are too long. Short, clear, and simple sentences will increase the readability of the text.

-There should be no acronyms in the title.

- In the text, cite the reference number in square brackets (e.g., “We used the techniques developed by our colleagues [19] to analyze the data”).

-A short, clear sentence will suffice for the aim of the article.

-The method section is quite detailed. However, the first paragraph of this section practically introduces the method. Then, a brief summary of the guide to the method is provided. Instead, simply describing the steps you followed based on the guide you referenced would suffice. Otherwise, reading the text becomes lengthy and tedious.

-Some analyses are overly detailed in the method section.

-The data collection period for the study should be stated at the beginning of the method section, not in the ethics statement.

-Despite a very detailed method section, it is not specified how the sample size is determined.

-Analysis results that cannot belong to the method such as CFA should be given in the results section.

-Does Scientiæ Baccalaureus mean students studying in a 4-year degree program? Please use a more up-to-date equivalent (Bachelor's degree students).

-Like the rest of the article, the results section is systematic and methodologically successful, but at times too detailed and technical.

-Page 29 is just a blank page.

-While the CFA results overall suggest an acceptable model fit (e.g., CFI = 0.964; TLI = 0.947; RMSEA = 0.079; SRMR = 0.049), the reported chi-square/df ratio (15.150) is substantially above the conventional thresholds (typically < 3 for acceptable fit). I would recommend the authors address this inconsistency more explicitly in the results or discussion section.

-There is no discussion part in the article. In the discussion section, topics such as comparison of the results with the literature, limitations of the study, comparison with previous scale studies should be included.

-The conclusion is more of a summary of the study. In this section, inferences such as the importance of the findings and their impact should be made instead of a summary.

-The limitations of the study should be developed and included in the discussion in this section and suggestions for future studies based on these should be addressed in the conclusion section.

I wish you success in your work.

Reviewer #2: Some terms, like "student-interface interaction," are mentioned but not explained in detail. It would be helpful to provide more context or examples to clarify what this term means and why it’s significant in the context of Turkish culture.

Suggestion: Include a brief explanation of "student-interface interaction" and its relevance to the study, especially in the Turkish educational context.

**********

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: PONE-D-25-35376_reviewer....pdf

Turkish Adaptation of a New Scale for Measuring Transactional Distance Between Students and the Learning Technology

PONE-D-25-35376R1

Dear Dr. Alperen YANDI,

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,

Zülbiye KAÇAY, assoc. prof.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Thank you for your careful and thorough revision of the manuscript. You have addressed all reviewer and editorial concerns point by point, and the revised version shows significant improvement in structure, clarity, and compliance with PLOS ONE guidelines. The addition of a comprehensive Discussion section, expanded Conclusion, and clear statement of limitations have strengthened the manuscript.

The updated Data Availability Statement with an open-access Zenodo DOI, along with professional English editing and improved formatting of tables, figures, and references, ensures that the article is ready for publication.

I am pleased to recommend your manuscript for acceptance in PLOS ONE. Congratulations on this achievement.

Reviewers' comments: