Dear Dr. Ayanwale,

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 09 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,

Bersissa Kumsa, DVM, MSc, 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. Please include a complete copy of PLOS’ questionnaire on inclusivity in global research in your revised manuscript. Our policy for research in this area aims to improve transparency in the reporting of research performed outside of researchers’ own country or community. The policy applies to researchers who have travelled to a different country to conduct research, research with Indigenous populations or their lands, and research on cultural artefacts. The questionnaire can also be requested at the journal’s discretion for any other submissions, even if these conditions are not met.  Please find more information on the policy and a link to download a blank copy of the questionnaire here: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/best-practices-in-research-reporting. Please upload a completed version of your questionnaire as Supporting Information when you resubmit your manuscript.

3. In the online submission form, you indicated that the data underlying the results presented in the study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.

All PLOS journals now require all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript to be freely available to other researchers, either 1. In a public repository, 2. Within the manuscript itself, or 3. Uploaded as supplementary information.

This policy applies to all data except where public deposition would breach compliance with the protocol approved by your research ethics board. If your data cannot be made publicly available for ethical or legal reasons (e.g., public availability would compromise patient privacy), please explain your reasons on resubmission and your exemption request will be escalated for approval.

4. Please ensure that you refer to Figure 1 in your text as, if accepted, production will need this reference to link the reader to the figure.

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.

6. Please include captions for your Supporting Information files at the end of your manuscript, and update any in-text citations to match accordingly. Please see our Supporting Information guidelines for more information: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/supporting-information.

7. 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. 

8. 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.

Additional Editor Comments :

Dear Authors,

The reviewers have completed their evaluation of your manuscript. I encourage you to revise and resubmit your work, ensuring that all reviewer comments are thoroughly addressed. Please incorporate the feedback carefully and provide a detailed, point-by-point response that clearly outlines every change made in response to the reviewers’ suggestions.

In addition, kindly correct all typographical and grammatical errors, and ensure that the manuscript is prepared in full compliance with the journal’s formatting and submission guidelines.

We look forward to receiving your revised submission.

Kind Regards,

[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: 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: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: No

**********

Reviewer #1: Thanks for submitting your article to PLOS ONE journal. The topic titled “Ethical Compliance and Institutional Policy Support for Artificial Intelligence Integration in African TVET Education: A Structural Equation Modeling Approach” this topic is timely and contribute to the body of knowledge. The introduction and literature review was well articulated with robust analysis and good discussion section. Below are some observations to strengthen the draft to meet international readership

Introduction section

1. Break up long paragraphs for better readability and academic flow.

2. Avoid redundancy: phrases like “reshape sectors” and “technological transformation” are used repeatedly.

3. Ensure precision: clarify ambiguous phrases such as “Copilot, ChatGPT, and Bard” are these examples of large language models, generative tools, or AI platforms?

Some example of academic writing tone. Kindly review the draft to identify them and correct accordingly.

1. “AI is increasingly penetrating all sectors of the global economy…”

“AI is increasingly transforming sectors of the global economy…”

2. “finds itself at the forefront…”

“is positioned at the forefront…”

3. “must equip learners with the competencies…”

“should equip learners with the requisite competencies…”

4. “AI tools such as Copilot, ChatGPT, and Bard…”

“AI tools—including generative systems like Copilot, ChatGPT, and Bard…”

5. “ethical misuse and regulatory gaps”

“potential misuse and regulatory shortcomings”

6. “cannot be realized without strong ethical frameworks…”

“depends upon the establishment of robust ethical frameworks

7. “surpass human control and comprehension”

“outpace human oversight and understanding”

8. The IPS moderation result is discussed at length, which is good—but consider softening the tone slightly to account for sample-specific limitations:

“While IPS was not statistically significant in this context, its theoretical relevance remains compelling, particularly where robust policy infrastructure exists.

9. “Artificial Intelligence is reshaping global economies and educational paradigms, challenging traditional approaches to teaching and learning.” see this Consider integrating transitional phrases: For example,

“In light of this transformation…” or “Against this backdrop…” to signal a shift in focus.

Improve on the scope of the study was poorly articulated: There is need to contextualize the scope as to clearly show were the study was carried out and why. Clarify the scope of your study earlier. Perhaps add: “This paper focuses on the ethical integration of AI within TVET systems in developing countries, with an emphasis on institutional policy and educator behavior.”

Suggested Improvements

Clarity and Flow. Consider breaking longer sentences into shorter, more digestible units. For example:

1. “Ethical principles guiding AI adoption offer a multifaceted foundation for understanding how educators engage with ethical guidelines in practice” could be revised to: “Ethical principles provide a multifaceted foundation. They help explain how educators engage with guidelines in day-to-day practice.”

2. Phrases like “must be translated into concrete, enforceable practices to influence real-world outcomes” could be made more concise: "must be operationalized through enforceable practices to impact educational outcomes."

3. Avoid repeating similar ideas in adjacent sentences (e.g., the notion of institutional mechanisms transforming ideals into practice is echoed multiple times).

4. Use transitions to better link paragraphs. Phrases like “Building on this foundation…” or “This leads to…” help orient the reader.

5. The use of acronyms (EPG, CAEG, PAAT) is fine for brevity, but it may help to occasionally restate the full terms for readability—especially at the start of each hypothesis.

Strengthen Empirical Gap. The final paragraph acknowledges a lack of empirical studies in TVET settings, especially in developing countries. You could amplify this by highlighting why Nigeria presents a particularly compelling case (e.g., rapid digital expansion, policy vacuums, educator training gaps).

Clarify Theoretical Framing; You may want to clarify whether your proposed model is grounded in a specific theory (e.g., institutional theory, stakeholder theory, or ethics of care) to strengthen academic framing.

Methodology section

Clear Research Design, A cross-sectional survey design is aptly justified and well-aligned with the objectives of examining relationships among latent constructs. Contextual Relevance, You situate the study effectively within Nigeria’s emerging AI-in-education ecosystem, highlighting local institutional challenges. Instrument Robustness, Multiple measures (face/content validity, expert review, pilot testing) strengthen your instrument’s credibility. Using validated scales from recent literature boosts construct validity. Sampling Transparency, The demographics are clearly presented, with informative stats on gender and qualification levels. PLS-SEM Rationale and Execution

Discussion Section

Area of strength

1. Insightful Findings Interpretation: The triangulation of direct, mediating, and moderating effects is well-executed. You offer layered insight into how ethical principles translate into practice and shape perceptions of AI adoption.

2. Evidence-Based Argumentation: Your extensive engagement with relevant literature reinforces theoretical alignment and empirical relevance.

3. Real-World Relevance: The connection to Nigeria’s TVET ecosystem and resource constraints provides a compelling backdrop for the findings and implications.

4. Theoretical Contribution: Introducing Rest’s Four-Component Model adds originality. It also grounds your results in a moral psychology framework—a fresh angle in AI ethics literature.

5. Action-Oriented Implications: The dual strategy (bottom-up ethical awareness and top-down policy reforms) offers clear, feasible policy recommendations for institutions in developing countries.

Clear separate this part to enhance readability and flow of thought

1. Interpretation of Findings

2. Theoretical Implications

3. Policy Implications

4. Practical Implications

Avoid starting sentences with “Ultimately” or “While…” too often. They work well occasionally, but varying sentence openers improves rhythm.

Example tweak: “Ultimately, our study confirms…” “This study confirms…”

You might vary tone by swapping formal phrasing occasionally: “Our model provided empirical support…” “The findings offer empirical support…”

3. Expand Practical Implications Briefly: Consider adding one line on how curriculum developers or educators might act on these insights—for example, integrating AI ethics into training modules.

Reviewer #2: First of all, I am sure that this is an interesting topic, so it aroused my interest in reading it carefully. In the process, I found some problems that need to be addressed by the authors in order to publish with higher quality.

1. The abstract is well written.

2. The keywords can be adjusted. They don’t have to come from the title. You can design African education, digital education, and AI education.

3. Please check the literature I provided, because I have some doubts when writing the research gap. Please compare with these literatures and see what your contribution is.

4. The third and fourth research questions need to be revised. We are more concerned about how to influence rather than whether to influence. In addition, what if there is no mediating effect of institutional policies?

5. The introduction has too much content, delete half of it.

6. The theoretical basis and its application should be explained in the literature review.

7. Each variable should be explained in the literature review, preferably using a table.

8. The model diagram needs to be redrawn. This model diagram does not look academic enough. Please refer to other papers in the journal with model diagrams for adjustment.

9. After the results, we should draw the model graph we verified, indicating the regression coefficients and significance between the paths.

10. The discussion and conclusion are very good.

**********

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

Attachments

Attachment

Submitted filename: Review.docx

Ethical Compliance and Institutional Policy Support for Artificial Intelligence Integration in African TVET Education: A Structural Equation Modeling Approach

PONE-D-25-32681R1

Dear Dr. Ayanwale,

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,

Bersissa Kumsa, DVM, MSc, PhD

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments: