-->PONE-D-25-26512-->-->Investigating the Relationship Between Teacher Efficacy, Job Satisfaction, and Digital Resource Utilization in Assessment Practices: Insights from PISA 2019 and 2022-->-->PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Khanal,

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 19 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.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:-->

• 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,

Chhabi Lal Ranabhat

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf .

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

Additional Editor Comments (if provided):

Dear Authors,

This paper shows potential in terms of data coverage and findings. However, it is also quite distracting, complex, and confusing. Please address the reviewers' comments carefully and update or revise the paper based on your data and variable limitations. Below are the comments that need your attention:

1) The research concept appears to relate to the influence of the COVID Pandemic (Research question 2) on UIT and UDT. There are no independent findings indicating that the pandemic serves as the foundation for UIT and UDT. Please revise your version for clarity. Additionally, make sure to clearly differentiate between the innovation and application of UIT and UDT in your operational definitions.

2) There is no clear source of data regarding the variables you analyzed. Are these data sets freely accessible or limited? How did you obtain them? Did you analyze a specific set of data, or did you compile them? What about the validity and reliability of the data collection tools used for 128,866 teachers across 24 countries? How does OECD centralize this data? Are these primary or secondary sources? Please provide a clear explanation.

3) The application of SEM involves both factor and regression analysis. The study does not clarify why both methods are necessary. Is this merely an academic exercise, or is it essential for obtaining these results? After the SEM, the authors should highlight the significant associations in five aspects within the abstract as well.

4) Please provide a univariate analysis of the results (including teacher level, age, sex, region, and economic level of the country, with frequency, percentage, mean, SD, etc.). Present the median levels of the five factors first, then proceed to the factor and regression analysis. Results should be presented in a manner that progresses from simple to complex for the readers.

5) Please clearly outline all limitations of the study.

Good luck !!

[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?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented. -->

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Partly

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

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

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.-->

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

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

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.-->

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

-->5. 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 #1: Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. The paper addresses an interesting and timely topic that is relevant to the journal’s scope. However, there are several areas that require significant improvement before the paper can be considered for publication. Please consider the following comments:

Introduction: The introduction section should be re-written to better articulate the research problem and clearly highlight the study’s contributions. At present, the rationale for the research lacks depth and needs stronger problematization.

Literature Review and Hypotheses Development: This section needs to be strengthened by incorporating more recent and relevant literature. Theoretical underpinnings supporting the proposed hypotheses must be more thoroughly discussed to enhance the scholarly value of the paper. This includes but not limited to:

-Closing the divide: Exploring higher education teachers’ perspectives on educational technology.https://doi.org/10.1177/02666669241279181

Methodology: Greater clarity is needed regarding the sample population, sampling technique used, and justification for the adequacy of the sample size. Additionally, please include the survey items used in the study (e.g., as an appendix) to improve transparency and enable the assessment of reliability and validity.

Common Method Bias: The findings section must address the issue of common method bias, which is often a concern in survey-based studies. Please report any statistical tests or procedural remedies employed to mitigate this issue.

Discussion: The discussion section should be enriched and more explicitly linked to the research questions and objectives. Aim to provide deeper theoretical and practical insights derived from your findings.

Practical Implications: Practical implications should be reported as a standalone section following the discussion. Strengthen this section by clearly articulating how your findings contribute to practice and policy, and highlighting the novelty of your work.

Limitations and Future Research: A dedicated paragraph discussing the study’s limitations and directions for future research should be included, either at the end of the discussion or in the conclusion section.

Reviewer #2: Review Document:

Investigating the Relationship Between Teacher Efficacy, Job Satisfaction, and Digital Resource Utilization in Assessment Practices: Insights from PISA 2019 and 2022

General Comments:

Thank you very much for giving me an opportunity to review this timely and relevant article. The topic is significant, especially in the context of evolving digital education practices and teacher performance. However, the manuscript would benefit from further refinement and alignment with academic publishing standards. Below are my specific comments and suggestions:

Formatting and Style:

Please ensure consistency with the journal’s formatting guidelines, particularly regarding line spacing, font style, and heading levels. Review both in-text citations and reference formatting to ensure compliance with the guidelines.

Abstract:

A clear background and problem statement are missing. This makes it difficult to understand the study’s rationale from the outset.

Introduction:

The first paragraph includes too many ideas. It is recommended to narrow the focus specifically on digital education and digital resource utilization before expanding to other related themes.

While the research gap is noted, the problem statement lacks clarity and should be explicitly presented.

The theoretical framework is not well integrated. The manuscript should explain how each variable (teacher efficacy, job satisfaction, and digital resource utilization) connects with the theoretical underpinnings guiding the study.

There are too many research questions, many of which resemble qualitative inquiries. Consider consolidating them into fewer, well-structured questions that encompass the key dimensions.

Brief contextual background on the issues raised in the research questions would help establish their relevance.

Literature Review:

The section is well-researched, but it remains mostly descriptive. A more analytical synthesis would enhance its scholarly depth. The context specific reviews are also missed.

While a conceptual model is included, the hypotheses are not clearly articulated in the text.

The theoretical argument supporting the relationships among variables is missing. This needs to be strengthened to frame the study appropriately.

Methodology:

The use of secondary data (PISA) is appropriate, but ethical considerations (e.g., data use permissions, IRB exemption) should still be acknowledged.

The SEM framework is discussed in the methodology section, including model values. It would be more appropriate to present these results in the findings section for better logical flow.

Results:

The presentation of results is heavily descriptive. Consider providing more critical interpretation of key findings.

The SEM model fit indices are not discussed adequately. This is essential for assessing the robustness of the model.

Discussion:

The theoretical engagement is limited. There is a need for deeper reflection on how the findings support or challenge existing theories.

The discussion is more narrative than analytical. Consider exploring why certain results emerged and how they compare with prior research.

The manuscript does not address alternative theoretical frameworks, such as the Technology Acceptance Model or Self-Determination Theory, which could offer valuable insights.

Conclusion and Implications:

The conclusion mainly repeats the findings. It should instead focus on summarizing key insights and their broader relevance.

Policy and practical implications should be clearly outlined, especially recommendations for governments, schools, and educational policymakers.

The manuscript omits a discussion of limitations, particularly methodological constraints, which are crucial for academic transparency and future research direction.

Final Suggestions:

A thorough language and grammar edit will improve the readability of the manuscript.

Please consider reorganizing certain sections to improve logical progression and argumentation flow.

Overall, the study addresses an important and timely topic. With substantial revisions, particularly in theoretical alignment, methodological clarity, and analytical depth, the manuscript can make a strong contribution to the literature on digital education and teacher performance.

**********

-->6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (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:  Ahmad Samed Al-Adwan

Reviewer #2: No

**********

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/ . PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org . Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

Attachments

Attachment

Submitted filename: xxReview Document.docx

Investigating the Relationship Between Teacher Efficacy, Job Satisfaction, and Digital Resource Utilization in Assessment Practices: Insights from PISA 2018 and 2022

PONE-D-25-26512R1

Dear Dr. Khanal,

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,

Chhabi Lal Ranabhat

Academic Editor

PLOS One

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

-->Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.-->

Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #3: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #4: (No Response)

**********

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

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented. -->

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

Reviewer #4: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #1: 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 requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.-->

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

Reviewer #4: Yes

**********

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

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.-->

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

Reviewer #4: Yes

**********

-->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 #1: Thank you for submitting your paper again. The comments have been addressed. No additional comments to be added.

Reviewer #3: All the requested comments and the suggestions given by the reviewers are thoroughly addressed in the revised version of the manuscript.

Reviewer #4: (No Response)

**********

-->7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (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 #3: No

Reviewer #4: Yes:  K P Ghimire

**********

Attachments

Attachment

Submitted filename: Reviewer_kpg.docx