Academic motivation, procrastination, and adjustment: Exploring their impact on student profiles and academic performance

Patra Vlachopanou; Laura Maska; Dimitrios Kalamaras; Fani Nasika

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0335913

Peer Review History

Original SubmissionApril 17, 2025
4 Jun 2025 Decision Letter - Phakkharawat Sittiprapaporn, Editor Dear Dr. Kalamaras, 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, Assoc. Prof. Phakkharawat Sittiprapaporn, Ph.D. Academic Editor PLOS ONE Journal Requirements: 1. When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements. 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. For studies involving human research participant data or other sensitive data, we encourage authors to share de-identified or anonymized data. However, when data cannot be publicly shared for ethical reasons, we allow authors to make their data sets available upon request. For 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. Please see http://www.bmj.com/content/340/bmj.c181.long for guidelines on how to de-identify and prepare clinical data for publication. 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.-->--> -->-->Please update your Data Availability statement in the submission form accordingly.-->--> -->-->3. We note that you have referenced “Chatzidimou, S. V.” which has currently not yet been accepted for publication. Please remove this from your References and amend this to state in the body of your manuscript: (Chatzidimou, S. V. [Unpublished]) as detailed online in our guide for authors-->-->http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-reference-style-->--> -->-->4. Please upload a new copy of Figure 1 as the detail is not clear. Please follow the link for more information: https://blogs.plos.org/plos/2019/06/looking-good-tips-for-creating-your-plos-figures-graphics/" https://blogs.plos.org/plos/2019/06/looking-good-tips-for-creating-your-plos-figures-graphics/-->?> [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 Reviewer #3: Yes Reviewer #4: Partly Reviewer #5: Yes ******** 2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? -->?> Reviewer #1: No Reviewer #2: Yes Reviewer #3: Yes Reviewer #4: Yes Reviewer #5: 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 Reviewer #3: Yes Reviewer #4: No Reviewer #5: Yes ****** 4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English??> Reviewer #1: No Reviewer #2: Yes Reviewer #3: Yes Reviewer #4: No Reviewer #5: Yes ****** Reviewer #1: The work presented by these authors is very interesting, but here are some limitations, in my opinion. The introduction is not very engaging, and the authors do not clearly present the limitations of the literature on the paper, nor do they address the gap that their work fills. There is no debate raised regarding the directions of the literature concerning new fields of research on the determinants. If possible, please consider including a flow diagram for the sample screening process to facilitate better understanding of the sampling procedure. In terms of methodology, the authors do not explain the benefits of using a model and the gaps it addresses, as well as the potential robustness of the results compared to other studies. Reviewer #2: Strengths: The study employs an appropriate combination of cluster analysis and MANOVA to identify and validate student profiles based on motivation, procrastination, and adjustment. The table clearly demonstrates meaningful differences between clusters, especially in terms of procrastination and intrinsic motivation. The profiles generated align with GPA performance, making the results potentially useful for targeted educational interventions. Suggestions for improvement: Please clarify how the number of clusters was determined (e.g., elbow method, silhouette analysis, or decision tree splits). It would strengthen the findings to elaborate on why extrinsic motivation shows no significant differences across profiles, and whether other subdimensions of motivation were considered. Reviewer #3: The manuscript is generally well-executed, but I have the following suggestions: Clarify Methodological Choices: It would be helpful to explain in more detail why the K-means and decision tree methods were selected over other potential techniques and the limitations associated with these methods. Contextualization of Findings: Further exploration of how the results relate to the specific cultural and educational context in Greece would strengthen the manuscript, especially considering the unique influences of Greek educational and societal norms on student behavior. Practical Applications: It would be beneficial to expand on how universities and educational programs can apply these findings in practical terms to support students better, focusing on interventions that target academic procrastination and motivation. Consideration of Additional Variables: The study focuses on motivation, procrastination, and adjustment. Including additional variables such as socio-economic status or mental health might provide more comprehensive insights into student success. Reviewer #4: Higlights This research is a great contribution to the field of educational psychology. Although the study focuses on variables that have been extensively studied such as academic adjustment, procrastination, and extrensic and intrinsic motivation, it provides a comprehensive discussion on the dynamic interplay of variables under study in Greeks’ context. Discussion of findings flows logically from the study results. To enhance the paper for publication, the researchers may consider the following: 1. Provide additional studies in Greece on similar variables to illustrate the study’s context. Only one study in Greece focusing on the positive effect of academic adjustment on students’ academic success was included. It will enrich the study’s context if the researcher will provide additional studies along this topic. 2. Revise the introduction to improve its coherence and cohesiveness. The researcher may also include a brief background or context on the status of Greek college students’ academic adjustment, motivation and procrastination in general. 3. Include participants’ relevant demographics such as their year level in college and degree programs because these data can also provide insights to the study’s results. 4. Add the title, Results, after Statistical Analysis to provide demarcation between Methodology and Results Sections. 5. Elaborate on specific interventions recommended in the conclusion section. Would it be school interventions only? Can policy makers be included too? 6. Ensure consistency in writing reference entries, capitalization of journal titles, use of period before the url. Observe hanging indentation. 7. The paper provides interesting, relevant, and insightful findings. To improve its clarity, consider improving awkward sentence construction and cohesion. Reviewer #5: It is good that the manuscript recognizes the need for academia to remain diligent in seeking ways to continuously improve support of student outcomes. However, in reading the manuscript I struggle to identify the meaningful contribution or expansion of knowledge. The constructs, academic motivation, procrastination, and adjustment have been extensively studied. Many of the findings are readily available and known. Perhaps a more beneficial study could assess the influence of online modalities or select AI policies in relation to academic motivation, procrastination, and adjustment. ****** 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: Shibiru Jabessa Dugasa Reviewer #2: No Reviewer #3: No Reviewer #4: No Reviewer #5: No ******** 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: The review result_PONE-D-25-16926.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0335913.r001
Revision 1
8 Jul 2025 Author Response Reviewer #1: The work presented by these authors is very interesting, but here are some limitations, in my opinion. The introduction is not very engaging, and the authors do not clearly present the limitations of the literature on the paper, nor do they address the gap that their work fills. There is no debate raised regarding the directions of the literature concerning new fields of research on the determinants. If possible, please consider including a flow diagram for the sample screening process to facilitate better understanding of the sampling procedure. In terms of methodology, the authors do not explain the benefits of using a model and the gaps it addresses, as well as the potential robustness of the results compared to other studies. Reviewer #2: Strengths: The study employs an appropriate combination of cluster analysis and MANOVA to identify and validate student profiles based on motivation, procrastination, and adjustment. The table clearly demonstrates meaningful differences between clusters, especially in terms of procrastination and intrinsic motivation. The profiles generated align with GPA performance, making the results potentially useful for targeted educational interventions. Suggestions for improvement:Please clarify how the number of clusters was determined (e.g., elbow method, silhouette analysis, or decision tree splits). Reply: Thank you for pointing this out, see Appentix It would strengthen the findings to elaborate on why extrinsic motivation shows no significant differences across profiles, and whether other subdimensions of motivation were considered. Reviewer #3: The manuscript is generally well-executed, but I have the following suggestions: Clarify Methodological Choices: It would be helpful to explain in more detail why the K-means and decision tree methods were selected over other potential techniques and the limitations associated with these methods. Contextualization of Findings: Reply: Thank you for pointing this out, see Lines 219-232 Further exploration of how the results relate to the specific cultural and educational context in Greece would strengthen the manuscript, especially considering the unique influences of Greek educational and societal norms on student behavior. Practical Applications: It would be beneficial to expand on how universities and educational programs can apply these findings in practical terms to support students better, focusing on interventions that target academic procrastination and motivation. Consideration of Additional Variables: The study focuses on motivation, procrastination, and adjustment. Including additional variables such as socio-economic status or mental health might provide more comprehensive insights into student success. Thank you so much for the suggestion, it would indeed be interesting to incorporate these variables in our future studies. Reviewer #4: Higlights This research is a great contribution to the field of educational psychology. Although the study focuses on variables that have been extensively studied such as academic adjustment, procrastination, and extrensic and intrinsic motivation, it provides a comprehensive discussion on the dynamic interplay of variables under study in Greeks’ context. Discussion of findings flows logically from the study results. To enhance the paper for publication, the researchers may consider the following: 1. Provide additional studies in Greece on similar variables to illustrate the study’s context. Only one study in Greece focusing on the positive effect of academic adjustment on students’ academic success was included. It will enrich the study’s context if the researcher will provide additional studies along this topic. Reply: Thank you for pointing this out, see Lines 46-56 2. Revise the introduction to improve its coherence and cohesiveness. The researcher may also include a brief background or context on the status of Greek college students’ academic adjustment, motivation and procrastination in general. 3. Include participants’ relevant demographics such as their year level in college and degree programs because these data can also provide insights to the study’s results. Reply: Thank you for pointing this out, see Lines 142-152 4. Add the title, Results, after Statistical Analysis to provide demarcation between Methodology and Results Sections. See line 238 5. Elaborate on specific interventions recommended in the conclusion section. Would it be school interventions only? Can policy makers be included too? 6. Ensure consistency in writing reference entries, capitalization of journal titles, use of period before the url. Observe hanging indentation. 7. The paper provides interesting, relevant, and insightful findings. To improve its clarity, consider improving awkward sentence construction and cohesion. Reviewer #5: It is good that the manuscript recognizes the need for academia to remain diligent in seeking ways to continuously improve support of student outcomes. However, in reading the manuscript I struggle to identify the meaningful contribution or expansion of knowledge. The constructs, academic motivation, procrastination, and adjustment have been extensively studied. Many of the findings are readily available and known Perhaps a more beneficial study could assess the influence of online modalities or select AI policies in relation to academic motivation, procrastination, and adjustment. Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: rebuttal letter.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0335913.r002
3 Aug 2025 Decision Letter - Phakkharawat Sittiprapaporn, Editor Dear Dr. Kalamaras, 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 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, Assoc. Prof. Phakkharawat Sittiprapaporn, Ph.D. Academic Editor PLOS ONE Journal Requirements: 1. 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. 2. 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: Reviewers' comments: Reviewer's Responses to Questions Comments to the Author Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed Reviewer #3: (No Response) Reviewer #4: All comments have been addressed ******** 2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions??> Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes Reviewer #3: Yes Reviewer #4: Yes ****** 3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? -->?> Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes Reviewer #3: Yes Reviewer #4: 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 Reviewer #3: Yes Reviewer #4: Yes ****** 5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English??> Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes Reviewer #3: Yes Reviewer #4: Yes ****** Reviewer #1: (No Response) Reviewer #2: Thank you for the opportunity to review the revised manuscript. The authors have carefully addressed the comments raised in the previous round, and the revisions have significantly improved the overall clarity and quality of the paper. The theoretical framework is now more coherent, the methodology is sound, and the discussion of the findings is insightful and well-supported by the data. I find the manuscript to be well-structured and of potential interest to the journal’s readership. I recommend that the paper be accepted for publication. Reviewer #3: (No Response) Reviewer #4: The study is a good addition to existing knowledge in the field of educational psychology that investigates the correlation among variables such as motivation, adjustment to college, and academic achievement. The author was able to address the reviewers’ recommendations in the revised paper. The introduction incorporates studies in Greece on similar topic as well as research gaps. Ideas in the introduction flow naturally and cohesively. The methodology section is logically sound, clear, and replicable. The author also includes respondents’ relevant demographics and educational implications recommended by the reviewers. However, I have three recommendations: 1. Include a graphic organizer (e.g. flow chart) for the study procedure from choosing the respondents to the statistical analysis to make it easy to grasp? 2. Provide a table for the respondents’ demographics to accompany the written description so that at glance, readers can make sense of it. 3. Add an introductory statement in the Results section before mentioning the findings of the study: As expected, procrastination assessment scale was negatively correlated to intrinsic motivation ... Also, take note of the correct usage in the following sentences: 1. Freshmans make up 13.8% of the sample. (Correction: Freshmen) 2. The sample comprised of 36.2% male and 63.4% female students. (Correction: The sample comprised 36.2% male and ….) ****** 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 Reviewer #3: No Reviewer #4: 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 https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0335913.r003
Revision 2
4 Sep 2025 Author Response Comments to the Author 6. Review Comments to the Author Reviewer #1: (No Response) Reviewer #2: Thank you for the opportunity to review the revised manuscript. The authors have carefully addressed the comments raised in the previous round, and the revisions have significantly improved the overall clarity and quality of the paper. The theoretical framework is now more coherent, the methodology is sound, and the discussion of the findings is insightful and well-supported by the data. I find the manuscript to be well-structured and of potential interest to the journal’s readership. I recommend that the paper be accepted for publication. Reviewer #3: (No Response) Reviewer #4: The study is a good addition to existing knowledge in the field of educational psychology that investigates the correlation among variables such as motivation, adjustment to college, and academic achievement. The author was able to address the reviewers’ recommendations in the revised paper. The introduction incorporates studies in Greece on similar topic as well as research gaps. Ideas in the introduction flow naturally and cohesively. The methodology section is logically sound, clear, and replicable. The author also includes respondents’ relevant demographics and educational implications recommended by the reviewers. However, I have three recommendations: 1. Include a graphic organizer (e.g. flow chart) for the study procedure from choosing the respondents to the statistical analysis to ma ke it easy to grasp? Reply: Thank you for pointing this out, see lines 181-183 2. Provide a table for the respondents’ demographics to accompany the written description so that at glance, readers can make sense of it. Reply: Thank you for pointing this out, see lines 157-161 3. Add an introductory statement in the Results section before mentioning the findings of the study: As expected, procrastination assessment scale was negatively correlated to intrinsic motivation ... Reply: Thank you for pointing this out, see lines 313-318 Also, take note of the correct usage in the following sentences: 1. Freshmans make up 13.8% of the sample. (Correction: Freshmen) Reply: Thank you for pointing this out, see line 141 2. The sample comprised of 36.2% male and 63.4% female students. (Correction: The sample comprised 36.2% male and ….) Reply: Thank you for pointing this out, see lines 138-139 Τhe remaining comments did not require any action from the authors Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: 2nd rebuttal letter.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0335913.r004
18 Sep 2025 Decision Letter - Phakkharawat Sittiprapaporn, Editor Dear Dr. Kalamaras, 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 Nov 02 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, Assoc. Prof. Phakkharawat Sittiprapaporn, Ph.D. Academic Editor PLOS ONE Journal Requirements: 1. 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. 2. 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.] Reviewer's Responses to Questions Comments to the Author Reviewer #4: All comments have been addressed ******** 2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions??> Reviewer #4: Yes ****** 3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? -->?> Reviewer #4: Yes ****** 4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available??> The PLOS Data policy Reviewer #4: Yes ****** 5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English??> Reviewer #4: Yes ****** Reviewer #4: All comments have been addressed; however, there is one more that I missed out pointing. Apologies for this oversight. Kindly indicate in your Methodology your research design and purpose. Is it a correlational study? Is it a descriptive quantitative study? What is its aim? ****** 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 #4: 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 https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0335913.r005
Revision 3
25 Sep 2025 Author Response 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 #4: All comments have been addressed; however, there is one more that I missed out pointing. Apologies for this oversight. Kindly indicate in your Methodology your research design and purpose. Is it a correlational study? Is it a descriptive quantitative study? What is its aim? Reply: Thank you for pointing this out, see lines 137-140 Τhe following comments of 4th reviewer did not require any action from the authors Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: 3nd rebuttal letter.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0335913.r006
20 Oct 2025 Decision Letter - Phakkharawat Sittiprapaporn, Editor Academic Motivation, Procrastination, and Adjustment: Exploring Their Impact on Student Profiles and Academic Performance PONE-D-25-16926R3 Dear Dr. Kalamaras, 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, Assoc. Prof. Phakkharawat Sittiprapaporn, Ph.D. Academic Editor PLOS ONE Additional Editor Comments (optional): Reviewers' comments: Reviewer's Responses to Questions Comments to the Author Reviewer #4: All comments have been addressed ******** 2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions??> Reviewer #4: Yes ****** 3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? -->?> Reviewer #4: Yes ****** 4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available??> The PLOS Data policy Reviewer #4: Yes ****** 5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English??> Reviewer #4: Yes ****** Reviewer #4: In line 112, concept is mispelled. Kindly correct it. in line 246, is it Result or Results? Please check because what I know is the section title is Results. ****** 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 #4: No ******** https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0335913.r007
Formally Accepted
Acceptance Letter - Phakkharawat Sittiprapaporn, Editor PONE-D-25-16926R3 PLOS ONE Dear Dr. Kalamaras, 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 Assoc. Prof. Dr. Phakkharawat Sittiprapaporn Academic Editor PLOS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0335913.r008

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 .