Dear Dr. Nittala,

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 Aug 25 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,

Wei Lun Wong

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. Please note that PLOS ONE has specific guidelines on code sharing for submissions in which author-generated code underpins the findings in the manuscript. In these cases, we expect all author-generated code to be made available without restrictions upon publication of the work. Please review our guidelines at https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/materials-and-software-sharing#loc-sharing-code and ensure that your code is shared in a way that follows best practice and facilitates reproducibility and reuse.-->--> -->-->3. Please include your full ethics statement in the ‘Methods’ section of your manuscript file. In your statement, please include the full name of the IRB or ethics committee who approved or waived your study, as well as whether or not you obtained informed written or verbal consent. If consent was waived for your study, please include this information in your statement as well.-->--> -->-->4. We note that you have referenced (Li, W.) 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: (Li, W. [Unpublished]) as detailed online in our guide for authors-->-->http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-reference-style-->--> -->-->5. Please remove your figures from within your manuscript file, leaving only the individual TIFF/EPS image files, uploaded separately. These will be automatically included in the reviewers’ PDF.-->--> -->-->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,

Based on the decisions given by reviewers, this paper requires MINOR REVISION. Please look through the comments and amend accordingly. Thank you.

[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: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

Reviewer #1:  Abstract Revision Notes

1. Introduction: already present, but too general.

2. Methods: present, but need to be summarized and written more formally.

3. Results: quite informative, but can be condensed.

4. Conclusion: the conclusion is still weak and too descriptive.

5. Structure the abstract explicitly in the framework: Background – Purpose – Methods – Results – Conclusion.

6. PROMPTa needs to be explained concisely from the beginning as a tool-based ICT-integrated multifaceted assessment framework.

7. Avoid too many numbers in the abstract; just the main data and significant differences.

8. Need to add one sentence about the theoretical or practical contribution of the findings, for example:

9. "These findings suggest that multifaceted peer-assisted ICT-based assessment tools like PROMPTa may significantly improve writing instruction strategies in higher education."

10. Avoid excessive statistical detail

11. Add main contributions/implications

Keyword Revision Notes

1. Too many or too specific keywords tend to interfere with the indexing process and relevance of scientific search engines.

2. Combine closely related terms or reduce redundancy.

3. Avoid overly long phrases such as “Peer Assessment and Feedback”. Use a concise form that is commonly used in international literature.

4. Some keywords overlap too much (e.g.: Peer Feedback, Mentor Feedback, and Expert Feedback can be combined as Multisource Feedback).

5. The main focus should be reflected, for example: Writing Skills Development, Alternative Assessment, ICT Integration.

6. Recommended Keywords: 1) PROMPTa, Alternative Assessment, Peer and Expert Feedback, Writing Skills Development, ICT Integration, Higher Education. 2). Keywords: PROMPTa, Alternative Writing Assessment, Multisource Feedback, ICT in Education, Academic Writing.

Preface Revision Notes

1. Too long and mixed between theoretical context, local, and study objectives.

2. Not explicitly divided into important elements: background – gap – urgency – objectives.

3. Suggestions Divide the introduction into 4 main paragraphs: 1). Global context: the importance of writing skills in the digital era and global challenges. 2). Local context: conditions in Nagaland and its challenges. 3). Theoretical gap: limitations of traditional assessment, the need for alternative approaches (PROMPTa). 4). Purpose: formulation of the problem and contribution of the study.

4. Sentences such as "The current education system fails to empower learners." sound too normative or subjective. International journals prefer neutral and data-based diction.

5. Some sections are repetitive, especially stating that the system in Nagaland is still traditional.

6. The introduction has not explicitly stated the literature gap, which is a must in a reputable journal.

7. There needs to be one explicit sentence at the end that formulates the purpose of the study and its contribution.

Revision Notes: Theoretical Framework & Literature Review

1. The description of the theory seems descriptive and fragmentary, not critically linked to each other or to the focus of the study.

2. Combine the theories into an integrated conceptual framework and state how this theory guided the study design (e.g., how SCT, peer feedback, technology, writing outcomes).

3. SCT, Constructivism, and Constructionism are described separately without a clear bridge.

4. Create an integrative paragraph that brings the theories together into a conceptual framework that supports the research design.

Research Methodology Revision Notes

1. It is called "mixed-methods," but it does not explain the type of approach (e.g., sequential explanatory, convergent, or exploratory sequential) and how the quantitative and qualitative data were integrated.

2. Add the type of mixed-methods design and how the qualitative and quantitative results were integrated.

3. It does not explain whether this is a true experiment or a quasi-experiment (because it is likely not random assignment).

4. Clarify that this is a quasi-experimental design if the assignment of participants is not random.

5. It does not explain the number of participants, sampling technique, institutions, and important characteristics (gender, age, program of study).

6. Add a detailed description of the participants, number, sampling method, and institution of origin.

7. The explanation is quite complete but is written in an informal narrative format and is somewhat repetitive.

8. Use subheadings such as Week-by-Week Intervention Plan or Instructional Phases, and focus on: objectives, activities, media, and evaluation.

9. No mention of the type of test, assessment criteria (rubric), validity, and reliability.

10. Add a description of the pre/post-test instrument and perception measurement tools (questionnaires and interviews).

11. No statement of ethical approval or informed consent.

12. Add a statement that ethical approval has been obtained.

Revision Notes for the "Limitations and Implications of the Study" Section

1. Limitations are written narratively and mixed without systematic grouping (eg: methodology, context, duration, analysis).

2. Classify limitations into several categories such as: sampling, intervention duration, and data analysis, then explain them in a concise and focused manner.

3. Implications are too focused on practice (implementation), whereas Scopus journals usually expect contributions to existing theories or models.

4. Add how these findings contribute to previous theoretical frameworks, for example alternatives.

Revision Notes for Conclusions

1. Phrases such as “confirms effectiveness,” “demonstrates significant improvement,” or “demonstrates that scaffolded assessment approaches can…” sound too strong for a study with limited context.

2. Use academic language that is tentative and based on the context of the findings, such as: “suggests,” “indicates potential,” “within this context.”

3. The conclusion focuses only on the context and practical outcomes without explaining the contribution to theory or previous literature.

4. Add one reflective paragraph that links the study’s findings to strengthening or expanding a theoretical framework, such as formative assessment theory, peer feedback, or edtech for equity.

5. There is no explicit statement about directions or recommendations for further research.

6. Add one sentence about how the study could be continued: longer duration, different contexts, or a longitudinal approach.

7. Some phrases sound descriptive or narrative rather than analytical and academic.

8. Use a formal, concise style that is based on a synthesis of findings rather than a re-description of the research process.

Reviewer #2:  Strengths:

The PROMPTa tool presents an innovative approach by combining peer, mentor, and expert feedback.

The research design is rigorous, and statistical methods are appropriately used.

The thematic analysis provides useful insight into learner challenges and the effectiveness of the intervention.

The manuscript is well contextualized within India’s National Education Policy (NEP 2020) and existing challenges in language instruction.

Suggestions for Improvement:

Reduce Redundancy: Consider condensing sections of the introduction and literature review that repeat similar arguments about writing challenges and assessment limitations.

Technical Description of PROMPTa: More details on the technical framework, user interface, and accessibility features of the PROMPTa platform would be helpful.

Examples of Feedback: Providing examples or screenshots of feedback (especially anonymized peer or expert comments) would strengthen the reader’s understanding.

Long-Term Impact: While the 8-week intervention is sufficient for initial analysis, a brief note on follow-up plans (or suggestions) for long-term tracking would improve the impact discussion.

Language Polish: Minor grammatical edits are needed to streamline some long paragraphs.

**********

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: Yes:  Alexander Adrian Saragi

**********

[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: Revision Text.docx

Attachment

Submitted filename: PONE-D-25-23770_reviewer (1).pdf

Dear Dr. Nittala,

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 28 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,

Wei Lun Wong

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. 

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed

**********

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

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

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

The PLOS Data policy

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

Reviewer #1: Abstract Revision Notes

1. The research problem (gap) has not been explicitly stated. The abstract directly states that assessment is important, but does not adequately highlight the shortcomings of previous research.

2. The research objectives are not explicitly stated.

3. The research methods are clear enough, but the technical sections (homogeneity, SD, reliability) are too detailed for the abstract.

4. The research results are presented, but they would be better presented concisely without excessive statistical detail.

5. The implications/contributions of the research are not clearly stated.

Keyword Revision Notes

1. Be concise (3–6 keywords) in accordance with common practice in international journals.

2. Avoid long phrases; keywords should be words or short phrases, not descriptive sentences.

3. Prioritize frequently used terms in indexing (for easy searchability in databases like Scopus).

keyword suggestions:

Keywords: PROMPTa; Alternative assessment; Peer feedback; Mentor feedback; Expert feedback; Writing skills; ICT.

Introduction Revision Notes

1. Too Long and Repetitive

2. Lack of Systematic Structure

3. Too Much Theory at the Beginning

4. Insufficiently Integrated References

5. Absence of Explicit Statement of Research Gaps

Method Revision Notes

1. Poorly organized structure

The methodology mixes method descriptions, pre-test results, and reliability analyses, which should be in the results section, not the methodology.

There are overly long narrative sections (e.g., explaining students' writing challenges) that would be more appropriate in the discussion section.

2. Too much operational detail

Mentioning specific intervention dates (e.g., "July 17, 2023 to September 9, 2023") is unnecessary in the methodology unless there is a specific reason.

The weekly phases are too detailed; they should be summarized as the main phases of the intervention.

3. Unclear subsections

The methodology should be divided into clear sections: Research Design, Participants, Instruments, Procedures, Data Analysis.

Currently, the methodology does not follow this structure, making it difficult to follow.

4. Lack of focus on methodological justification

There is no explanation of why mixed methods were chosen and how this method enhances the validity of the findings.

There is no justification for selecting the sample size other than "average standard deviation", which needs to be linked to the research justification.

limitations and implications Revision Notes

1. No clear statement of limitations.

The section begins with the sentence "This study acknowledges several limitations," but then jumps to the conclusion without fully addressing the limitations of the study.

2. Mixed sections.

The text includes conclusions and a rehash of the results (e.g., "This study highlights the effectiveness of..."), when it should only outline the limitations of the study and implications for future research or educational practice.

3. Lack of focus on implications.

The implications are still a general narrative about the effectiveness of PROMPTa, rather than clear recommendations for educators, policymakers, or future research.

4. Lack of conciseness.

There is a lot of repetition that should be condensed.

Conclusion Revision Notes

1. Too long and repetitive

Many concepts are repeated, for example, the effectiveness of PROMPTa is mentioned repeatedly.

2. Including new information that should be in "Limitations and Implications"

The section on "infrastructure limitations, accessibility, and digital literacy" is more appropriately placed in the limitations/implications section, not the conclusion.

3. Lack of focus

The conclusion should reiterate the main findings, research contributions, and brief recommendations, not rehash the methodology or lengthy discussion.

4. Lack of academic punch line

There is no clear concluding sentence about the scientific contributions and future research directions.

Reviewer #2: Strengths:

1. Theoretical framework is now well-integrated, combining SCT, Constructivism, and Constructionism into a cohesive model.

2. The methodology is clearly explained, including intervention phases and the role of PROMPTa.

3. Quantitative results are robust, and qualitative analysis provides rich contextual insights.

4. Practical relevance is high, especially for low-resource educational settings.

5. Inclusion of anonymized feedback samples offers transparency into the assessment process.

Suggestions for further improvement:

1. Consider explicitly reporting effect sizes for key statistical comparisons to complement p-values.

2. In the Discussion, strengthen the explicit connection between findings and how they advance or challenge prior literature.

3. Briefly address scalability and feasibility of PROMPTa in varied institutional contexts, especially where ICT infrastructure is limited.

4. Split a few longer paragraphs in the Introduction and Literature Review for improved readability.

**********

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: Yes:  Alexander Adrian Saragi

**********

[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: Revision Text.docx

Dear Dr. Nittala, 

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 Oct 30 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,

Wei Lun Wong

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. 

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #1: I Don't Know

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: Abstract Revision Notes

1. IMRAD Structure

International journal abstracts are generally concise and follow a clear flow of Introduction–Method–Result–Conclusion. Your abstract includes all of these sections, but the transitions are still long and rambling. They need to be condensed and emphasized.

2. Clarity of Purpose

The purpose statement is scattered throughout the abstract. It should be emphasized in one clear sentence: “This study aims to evaluate…”.

3. Methodology

The information is present (mixed-methods, number of participants, randomization), but it is too long. International abstracts are usually concise, simply mentioning the design, participants, and instruments briefly.

4. Main Results

The results are presented, but the phrase “significant improvement” should be reinforced with numbers (e.g., post-test mean score, effect size, or p-value). If numbers are not present, at least use more academic language.

5. Contribution/Implications

Present, but somewhat repetitive. Could be condensed to focus on novelty and practical implications.

6. Language

Needs to be more academic, avoiding general terms like "adds to existing literature" → replace with "extends existing literature on technology-assisted assessment in writing pedagogy."

Use active but formal sentences, and avoid repeating "technology-based assessment" more than once.

Keyword Revision Notes

1. Quantity: International journals typically have 4–6 keywords, no more. Your keywords are too many (7).

2. Consistency with the Abstract: Keywords should be consistent with the terms appearing in the abstract.

Avoid excessive use of synonyms. For example, Peer Feedback, Mentor Feedback, and Expert Feedback can be condensed into one general term, such as Peer and Expert Feedback.

3. Global Readability: Because the target is international, keywords should be in English and should not use abbreviations without explanation (PROMPTa is fine, but TIK is better changed to ICT).

Introduction Revision Notes

1. Structure and Flow

The introduction is too long and contains a mix of general background, literature review, and local context.

It should be organized in a clear flow:

Paragraph 1: The importance of writing in a global/academic context (general gap).

Paragraph 2: Challenges in writing assessment, especially in the digital/AI era (literature gap).

Paragraph 3: Local context (Nagaland, multilingualism, education system, inequality).

Paragraph 4: Research gap + research objective (this study aims to…).

Currently, the Research Background section can be condensed into paragraph 3 (no need for a separate subheading, as introductions in international journals typically do not use headings).

2. Clarity of the Research Gap

The introduction is still descriptive (describing the general situation and challenges of writing).

There needs to be explicit sentences that indicate:

(1) What has been researched by previous studies,

(2) What has not been researched (gap),

(3) How this research fills the gap.

Example:

“While prior studies have examined writing pedagogy in multilingual settings [15–17], limited research has explored technology-assisted formative assessment as a means to improve writing proficiency in the context of Nagaland. This study addresses this gap…”

3. Redundancy and Excessive Detail

Some sentences are too detailed for an introduction (e.g., about Nagamese, teachers dictating notes, one-way traffic). These details should be condensed or moved to the discussion section.

For example:

“In Nagaland, the dominance of teacher-centered practices and reliance on rote memorization have limited students’ opportunities to develop writing as a process of critical thinking and creativity [17–20].”

4. International Academic Language

Currently, the language is still narrative-descriptive and needs to be condensed with an analytical style.

Examples of less academic phrases: “The current system has failed to empower learners” → should be: “The current system remains predominantly teacher-centered, limiting learner autonomy and critical engagement.”

5. Relevance to the Study

The section on AI and academic authenticity is interesting, but it doesn't directly connect to the research focus (PROMPTa as a solution). There needs to be a stronger transition so readers see that this study isn't just describing a problem, but also offering a solution.

6. Research Objective Statement

It should be explicit at the end of the introduction. Currently, the objective appears vague.

Add one final sentence, for example:

“Therefore, this study aims to investigate the effectiveness of PROMPTa, a multifaceted ICT-based formative assessment tool, in enhancing writing skills among first-year students in Nagaland.”

Method Revision Notes

1. Clarity and Consistency of Research Design

The text uses the terms mixed methods, convergent parallel design, and quasi-experimental design simultaneously. This may confuse international readers.

Revision: The relationship between the two needs to be clarified. For example, "This study used a mixed methods design with a quantitative component in the form of a quasi-experimental design and a qualitative component in the form of interviews, questionnaires, and observations."

2. Justification for Method Selection

The methods are currently described, but the rationale for selecting convergent mixed methods and quasi-experimental design is not yet strong.

Revision: Add methodological references (e.g., Creswell & Plano Clark, 2018; Johnson & Onwuegbuzie, 2004) to explain why this combination of methods is appropriate for the research question.

3. Participant Description

Participant data is quite detailed, but lacks international standards.

Revision: Add:

Participant inclusion and exclusion criteria.

Randomization process (e.g., simple random sampling or stratified).

Gender ratio (how many men, how many women).

Justify sample size using power analysis (e.g., G*Power).

4. Research Instrument

The instrument is describe1d at length, but remains narrative.

Revision: Create a summary table of the instrument that includes: instrument type, purpose, data format, sample items/activities, and validation sources.

Instrument validity (content validity) is only mentioned based on expert input; it should be referred to as a formal method such as the Content Validity Index (CVI).

5. Reliability and Validity

Reliability is referred to as Pearson correlation, although for rubric assessment, Cronbach's Alpha or Inter-rater Reliability (Cohen's Kappa/ICC) should be used.

Revision: Replace or add appropriate reliability techniques.

6. PROMPTa Implementation

The PROMPTa description is too long; it would be better included in the Instrument section or Appendix.

Revision: Condense the description in the Methodology and move technical details to the Appendix so readers don't lose focus on the method's structure.

7. Research Stages

The week-by-week explanation is very narrative.

Revision: Create a table or research flowchart to clarify the 8-week intervention timeline.

8. Data Analysis

The quantitative analysis is clear (Levene's test, t-test), but the effect size (Cohen's d, η²) is not mentioned. This is despite international journals requiring the reporting of effect sizes.

The qualitative analysis is only called "thematic analysis," but the detailed procedures are not explained (e.g., Braun & Clarke, 2006: coding, theme development, triangulation).

Revision: Add detailed qualitative analysis procedures and the software used (e.g., NVivo/Atlas.ti).

9. Research Ethics

Ethics approval is in place, but it would be better to add the ethics clearance number and a reference to international ethical standards (e.g., the Declaration of Helsinki or APA Ethical Principles).

10. International Academic Language

Currently, the text still seems lengthy and descriptive. For international journals, the methodology needs to be concise, systematic, and evidence-based.

Revision: Use consistent subheadings (Research Design, Participants, Instruments, Procedures, Data Analysis, Ethical Considerations).

Discussion of Results Revision Notes

1. Too Descriptive, Not Analytical

Many sections simply repeat figures from tables/figures (M, SD, p-value, correlation), whereas in international journals, these should be confined to the results section, not the discussion.

The discussion should emphasize what the figures mean, not simply repeat them.

Revise → summarize the reported figures and focus on their meaning:

“The strong consistency of intra- and inter-rater reliability confirms the credibility of the evaluation instrument, strengthening the reliability of the experimental results in the context of ICT-based assessment.”

2. Lack of Linking to Previous Literature

The discussion should compare the findings with previous research (e.g., whether the results align with/contradict other studies).

Currently, there are only internal claims without explicit references.

Revise → insert citations:

“These findings are consistent with study X (2020) which showed that the use of ICT-based platforms can improve the quality of feedback and students' writing motivation.”

3. Language Remains Local, Lacking Globality

Discussions tend to focus solely on the Nagaland context.

International journals expect generalizations or implications for global contexts (e.g., other developing countries with digital limitations).

Revise → withdraw generalizations:

“Although the study was conducted in Nagaland, the challenges faced—limited digital access, low motivation to write, and lack of meaningful feedback—are also relevant in many developing regions in Asia and Africa.”

4. Underemphasize Practical Significance

Cohen’s d = 1.25 is provided, but it doesn’t explain what it means in educational practice.

International readers want to know: is this a large effect size worth considering in policy?

Revise → make a practical interpretation:

“The large effect size (Cohen’s d = 1.25) confirms that PROMPTa integration is not only statistically significant but also has a substantial practical impact on writing skill development.”

5. Qualitative Analysis Lacks Integration with Quantitative

Qualitative results (themes, participant quotes) are still presented separately from quantitative results.

International journal standards typically require triangulation → demonstrating how qualitative data supports or enriches quantitative data.

Revise → integrate:

“The improvement in post-test scores in the experimental group is reinforced by qualitative findings: participants emphasized that PROMPTa's feedback structure reduced anxiety and improved writing clarity, consistent with the significant shift in quantitative scores.”

6. Lack of Critical Discussion

There is no discussion of why there was variation in scores (e.g., the experimental group's SD was higher → indicating a non-uniform effect).

There is no critical reflection on the limitations of the results (e.g., could the effect have diminished without mentor support?).

Revise → add critical reflection:

“Although scores improved significantly, the higher variability in the experimental group suggests that PROMPTa's impact was uneven. Factors such as differences in digital readiness and individual motivation may have influenced the intervention's effectiveness.”

Conclusion Revision Notes

1. More concise and focused – The current conclusion is too long and mixed with narrative “discussions” (e.g., about adaptation in low-connectivity areas). International journals typically require concise conclusions, not repeating details already discussed.

2. More systematic structure – The conclusion should consist of:

� Summary of the main findings.

� Theoretical and practical implications.

� Limitations of the study (briefly, if not a separate section).

� Directions for future research.

3. Objective academic language – Phrases such as “the evidence that alternative assessment is practically effective” are too normative. It is better to use evidence-based language, such as “the findings demonstrate the effectiveness of alternative assessment in…”.

4. Avoid repetition – Excessive repetition (e.g., “improved writing efficiency” appears more than once). Only mention it once at the beginning.

5. Relationship to the literature – By international standards, the conclusion should emphasize how the study's results fill a gap in previous research or reinforce the findings of other researchers.

6. Explicit limitations & recommendations – Currently not mentioned, although almost all international journals require acknowledgment of study limitations and suggestions for further research.

Implications Revision Notes

1. Language remains normative and repetitive

Words like "encouraging" and "can have a positive impact" are too general and lack academic relevance.

Revise → Use language based on empirical findings, for example: "The findings demonstrate the potential effectiveness of implementing ICT-based alternative assessments in the long term to support the development of students' writing skills."

2. Lack of explicit separation of practical and theoretical implications

The implications are written for researchers, educators, and policymakers, but do not clearly differentiate between practical and theory-based aspects.

Revise → Use subheadings "Practical Implications" and "Policy Implications" for greater systematic presentation.

3. Lack of clarity in connecting the findings to the global context

The implications are still focused on Nagaland/India. For international journals, it would be better to draw a broader context: how these results are relevant in digitally challenged regions globally (Southeast Asia, Africa, Latin America).

4. Lack of linking to previous literature

International journals typically require that implications be based not only on their own findings but also on previous studies.

Theoretical Contributions Revision Notes

1. Lack of specificity regarding theoretical gaps

Currently, the paper only mentions Social Cognitive Theory (SCT) and Constructivism, but does not explain the gaps in previous research and how this study addresses them.

Revise → add a brief explanation: "Previous studies on the application of SCT and constructivism to writing instruction have been limited to face-to-face/traditional contexts. This study expands the application of these theories to the ICT-based digital realm, specifically in alternative assessment."

2. Contribution is still descriptive, not conceptual.

It should be emphasized that this research produces a new framework, conceptual model, or operationalization of theory in a technological context.

Revise → explicitly state the conceptual contribution (e.g., "This contribution extends SCT by emphasizing the digital dimension of peer feedback").

3. The language is too long and narrative.

It should be more concise, systematic, and use an academic structure:

� Theory used.

� Existing gap.

� How this research fills the gap.

� New model/contribution.

4. Not enough emphasis on global relevance.

While it is simply called “21st century,” it should emphasize that this theoretical contribution is relevant across global educational contexts, not just in Nagaland.

Reviewer #2: The authors have substantially improved the manuscript in response to previous review rounds. The abstract is now concise, clearly states the research gap, objectives, and implications. The introduction is streamlined and follows a logical flow, with reduced redundancy and a clear articulation of the research gap.

The methodology section has been reorganized into well-defined subsections (Research Design, Participants, Instruments, Procedures, Data Analysis), improving readability and reproducibility. The justification for using a mixed-methods approach and sample size has been added, strengthening methodological rigor.

The results are robust and complemented by effect sizes, enhancing interpretability. The discussion now effectively links findings to prior literature and emphasizes theoretical and practical implications. Limitations and implications are clearly separated, with actionable recommendations for educators and policymakers.

The conclusion is more concise, avoids repetition, and provides a strong final sentence that highlights contributions and future research directions.

Overall, this revised manuscript is now of publishable quality and meets the PLOS ONE criteria for scientific and methodological rigor.

**********

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: Yes:  Alexander Adrian Saragi

**********

[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: Revision Text.docx

Dear Dr. Nittala,

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 Dec 07 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,

Wei Lun Wong

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 #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: Yes

**********

Reviewer #2: The manuscript demonstrates a well-conceived and executed study on ICT-integrated multifaceted assessment for writing skills. The integration of peer, mentor, and expert feedback within the PROMPTa framework is a timely and valuable contribution to technology-enhanced learning literature. The study effectively combines quantitative and qualitative analyses, presenting compelling evidence that ICT-mediated assessment improves student writing proficiency and engagement.

Strengths:

- Strong theoretical grounding in Social Cognitive Theory, Constructivism, and Constructionism.

- Methodologically rigorous mixed-methods design.

- Clear articulation of intervention procedures and validation of instruments.

- Insightful discussion linking data to policy contexts such as NEP 2020.

Suggestions for minor improvement:

- Include more details on how PROMPTa ensures inter-rater fairness and consistency in real classroom settings.

- Clarify whether the tool’s usability and accessibility were measured quantitatively (e.g., user satisfaction scales).

- A brief reflection on scalability or adaptability to other educational contexts could strengthen the implications section.

Overall, this manuscript meets PLOS ONE’s publication criteria. I recommend acceptance after minor language and clarification revisions.

**********

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:  Alexander Adrian Saragi

**********

[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.]

To ensure your figures meet our technical requirements, please review our figure guidelines: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/figures 

You may also use PLOS’s free figure tool, NAAS, to help you prepare publication quality figures: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/figures#loc-tools-for-figure-preparation. 

NAAS will assess whether your figures meet our technical requirements by comparing each figure against our figure specifications.

PROMPTa - A Multifaceted Assessment Approach to Develop Writing Skills

PONE-D-25-23770R4

Dear Dr. Noel, 

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,

Wei Lun Wong

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: Yes

**********

Reviewer #2: The authors have adequately addressed the comments raised in the previous review round. The revisions improve the clarity of the methodology, the explanation of PROMPTa, and the alignment between objectives, data analysis, and conclusions.

The statistical procedures (pre-test/post-test comparison, reliability estimates, Levene’s test, t-tests) are now clearly presented and appropriately interpreted. The addition of both intra-rater and inter-rater reliability strengthens the validity of the findings.

The qualitative analysis section has been clarified and now logically complements the quantitative results. The thematic analysis is well-structured, and its connection to the research questions is clearer than in the earlier draft.

Minor language issues remain (e.g., occasional long sentences and typographical spacing), but they do not affect readability or scientific interpretation. These can be corrected during final proofreading.

Overall, the manuscript is now suitable for publication.

**********

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:  Alexander Adrian Saragi

**********