Dear Dr. Fan,

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 27 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,

Muhammad Zammad Aslam

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 stating the following financial disclosure:

The initials of the authors who received each award: F.L.

This study was supported by the "2023 Guizhou Provincial Education Science Planning Project and Yue-Qian Special Project" from the Guizhou Provincial Department of Education. The project is titled "Constructing National Identity in College English through the Integration of Guizhou's Local Cultural Resources" and has been awarded the project number: 2023B035.

For further information regarding the funding support, please refer to the following links:

Guizhou Provincial Department of Education website: https://jyt.guizhou.gov.cn/index.html

Announcement of the project establishment: https://jyt.guizhou.gov.cn/xwzx/tzgg/202311/t20231113_83074270.html

The funding body was primarily involved in the release of the project guidelines and the selection of high-quality projects during the establishment process.

Please state what role the funders took in the study. If the funders had no role, please state: "The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript."

If this statement is not correct you must amend it as needed.

Please include this amended Role of Funder statement in your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf.

4. We notice that your supplementary [figures] are included in the manuscript file. Please remove them and upload them with the file type 'Supporting Information'. Please ensure that each Supporting Information file has a legend listed in the manuscript after the references list.

5. Please remove all personal information, ensure that the data shared are in accordance with participant consent, and re-upload a fully anonymized data set.

Note: spreadsheet columns with personal information must be removed and not hidden as all hidden columns will appear in the published file.

Additional guidance on preparing raw data for publication can be found in our Data Policy (https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-human-research-participant-data-and-other-sensitive-data) and in the following article: http://www.bmj.com/content/340/bmj.c181.long.

Additional Editor Comments :

Recommendations for Major Revisions

1. Generalizability of sample

- Please provide justifications for your sample limitations, explicitly acknowledging the validations discussed in your discussion and explaining future testing to make your framework universal across diverse EFL contexts (e.g., Latin America, Europe, US, etc.).

2. Indicator Operationalization

- Please provide concrete examples for secondary indicators, such as Local storytelling and Cultural Pride, to illustrate practical implications. This can be achieved by detailing scenarios for hypothetical assessment in a supplementary table that explains future sample assessment tasks or rubrics.

3. Theoretical Issues

- Please explain your models more within your local context, such as ACTFL and CEFR, by creating an integrated model of local culture descriptors. This would also aid in proposing a model for practitioners based on the implications of your study.

4. Data Transparency Explained

- Your data is not fully present in the manuscript. Please ensure that you submit your data to a repository in accordance with the nature of your study.

5. Ethical Considerations

- Are others’ identities kept secured? Please explain it in the EC section

6. Theoretical Integration

- Add recent citations for clear integration, as suggested by the Reviewer, for bridging theory and practice—specifically in the discussion section under the heading “cognitive processes and feedback preferences."

7. Figures

- Please use good software to improve your figures

8. Discussion/Conclusion

- Please write your specific implications

- Learners’ narratives are not discussed properly in comparison with existing studies. Compare local culture to international cultures

- Include DOIs for all references.

- Professional proofreading is needed

[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: Partly

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

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

The PLOS Data policy

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: No

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

Reviewer #1: 1. The paper is interesting as it offers a framework that can be expanded and applied in other contexts too.

2. Improve the aim of the study. Is it to use Delphi, or to examine matters at hand through Delphi?

3. Revise the format of the article. The colour scheme for the figures may not be the most effective.

Reviewer #2: The authors have done great job to compose a well comprehend article, however some major changes would help to improve the integrity and academic value of the study. I would suggest authors to consider recommended comments provided by attached file.

**********

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:  Shaidatul Akma Adi Kasuma

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-25-18530.pdf

Attachment

Submitted filename: Reviewer Report for Manuscript PONE-D-25-18530.docx

Dear Dr. Fan,

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 11 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,

Muhammad Zammad Aslam, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

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. 

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 #1: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Partly

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

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

The PLOS Data policy

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

Reviewer #1: The article is well-written and presented. The data is rigourous. There are several parts that may require further clarity as highlighted in the manuscript.

Reviewer #2: 1,The manuscript is excessively long, with numerous repetitive examples, citations, and table explanations (e.g., extensive elaboration on indicators that repeat the same construct wording). The Results section, while data-rich, suffers from redundancy between narrative and table content. Condense repeated discussions on Delphi/AHP procedures. Consider moving detailed indicator breakdowns to appendices or supplementary files.

2,Kramsch and Byram are central, but no conceptual model or diagram links the three dimensions (cognition, affect, behavior) to symbolic competence. While symbolic competence is mentioned, symbolism as a construct is underdeveloped. Add a conceptual model figure showing how symbolic competence maps onto your three dimensions. Also, better define how your index extends vs. operationalizes Kramsch’s theory.

3,All 15 experts are from mainland China, and most have similar academic backgrounds. This weakens the cross-cultural applicability of the index. No diversity in learner or stakeholder perspectives (e.g., learners, employers, teachers from different systems). Acknowledge this limitation explicitly in the Discussion. Consider a future validation phase in diverse contexts (e.g., South Asia, ASEAN) as a next step.

4,While AHP calculations are provided, rationale for certain weightings lacks theoretical grounding. For instance, why is storytelling (13.67%) weighted more heavily than historical understanding (3.35%)? The decision to equal-weight affective attitudes like “pride” and “critical openness” is sociopolitically sensitive—more explanation is needed.

Justify key weight assignments with either empirical pilot results or pedagogical priorities tied to established models (e.g., Bloom’s, Vygotsky).

5,Numerous grammatical issues, unclear sentence structures, and mixed citation styles (APA, numeric). Some sections (e.g., “Second Delphi survey results”) read more like reports than academic narrative. Strong language editing is necessary. Use consistent academic English, e.g., replace "improved indicators" with "refined indicators."

**********

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:  Shaidatul Akma Adi Kasuma

Reviewer #2: Yes:  Ushba Rasool

**********

[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

Attachments

Attachment

Submitted filename: PONE-D-25-18530_R1.pdf

Assessing local cultural awareness in university EFL learners: A Delphi and AHP-based index framework

PONE-D-25-18530R2

Dear Dr. Fan,

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,

Muhammad Zammad Aslam, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed

**********

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

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

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

The PLOS Data policy

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

**********

Reviewer #2: The authors have thoroughly revised the manuscript as suggested and i appreciate the effort made by author's in this process.

**********

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: Yes:  Ushba Rasool

**********