Dear Dr. Abren,

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.

==============================

Thank you for your submission. Please revise your paper, highlight the changes, and provide a response letter.You need to improve the theoretical framework, enrich the discussion, and update the refs.Best,Ali Derakhshan

==============================

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,

Ali Derakhshan

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

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

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

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

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

2. Please provide additional details regarding participant consent. In the ethics statement in the Methods and online submission information, please ensure that you have specified (1) whether consent was informed and (2) what type you obtained (for instance, written or verbal, and if verbal, how it was documented and witnessed). If your study included minors, state whether you obtained consent from parents or guardians. If the need for consent was waived by the ethics committee, please include this information.

If you are reporting a retrospective study of medical records or archived samples, please ensure that you have discussed whether all data were fully anonymized before you accessed them and/or whether the IRB or ethics committee waived the requirement for informed consent. If patients provided informed written consent to have data from their medical records used in research, please include this information.

3. 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.

4. In the online submission form you indicate that your data is not available for proprietary reasons and have provided a contact point for accessing this data. Please note that your current contact point is a co-author on this manuscript. According to our Data Policy, the contact point must not be an author on the manuscript and must be an institutional contact, ideally not an individual. Please revise your data statement to a non-author institutional point of contact, such as a data access or ethics committee, and send this to us via return email. Please also include contact information for the third party organization, and please include the full citation of where the data can be found.

5. 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

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: No

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: The study is well-targeted to a crucial and relevant educational psychology problem employing a good methodological strategy to examine gender-differentiated pathways. The findings have helpful implications for educationally gender-sensitive practice. However, several of the points require clarification and elaboration to enhance the contribution and scholarship of the manuscript. Please to see attached Review Report

Reviewer #2: Major Points for Consideration

1. Sampling and Representation:

The sample is heavily skewed towards female students (59.2% final sample). While this can happen in random sampling, it should be briefly acknowledged in the limitations section. A comment on whether this proportion is representative of the general student population in Bahir Dar would be useful.

The average age of participants is provided (16.69), but the age range would be helpful context.

2. Clarity in Results Reporting:

Table 4 (R² values): The p-values for all R² estimates are listed as .001 or .002. However, R² is a measure of variance explained, and its significance is typically inferred from the overall model fit and path significances. Reporting a p-value for R² itself is unusual. Please confirm the statistical test being reported here.

Page 27, Indirect Effects: The text states: "females a coefficient of (β = 0.086, 40% CI [0.036, 0.135])". This appears to be a typo and should read "95% CI".

Page 28, Table 6: The estimates for "Total Indirect Effect of STR" and "Total Indirect Effect of ATV" are listed as 0.000 for both estimate and CI, which seems implausible given the specific indirect effects listed above are not zero. This likely requires correction.

3. Discussion Nuance:

The discussion could briefly speculate on the cultural reasons behind the observed gender differences within the Ethiopian context. Why might teacher relationships be more salient for boys? Why might task value be a stronger driver for girls? Adding a sentence or two would enrich the interpretation.

When citing references in the discussion, ensure they perfectly align with the point being made. For example, on Page 30, the citation [33] is about "school-based collaboration," which seems less directly relevant to the point about motivational interventions than other potential citations might be.

Minor comments

Required Editorial Corrections

1. Abstract:

The beta (β) symbols in the abstract are currently used to represent R² (variance explained). This is statistically incorrect. Beta (β) represents standardized regression coefficients. The abstract should state "R² = 0.403" instead of "β = 0.403". This error appears throughout the abstract. This is a critical correction.

2. Data Availability Statement:

The statement is currently appropriate for restricted data. However, ensure the journal's policy is met. The text "The datasets that support the conclusions of this study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request" is standard and acceptable.

3. Formatting and Typos:

Page 8, Line 31-32: 95% CI [0.279, 0.516], p < .001), while they explain 31.9% of the variance for female students (β = 0.319, 95% CI [0.224, 0.408], p < .001). -> Again, these should be R² values, not β.

Page 13, Line 143: Bahir Dar City Administration, which includes a total of 21 secondary schools (– i.e., 11 public and 10 private) -> The format "(– i.e., ...)" is awkward. Use "(i.e., 11 public and 10 private)".

Page 17, Line 239: 5 point Lickert scale -> Should be "5-point Likert scale".

Page 21, Table 1: The last variable is labeled "Positive engagement (PD)" but should be "Positive development (PD)" to match the text and construct.

Page 25, Table 5: The column header C.R. is defined as "Critical ratio" in the note. It is more commonly referred to as the "Critical Ratio" (which is equivalent to a z-score for testing parameter estimates). This is fine, but ensure consistency.

Page 30, Line 462: had significa3nt positive effects -> Typo: "significant".

4. Reference Consistency:

Page 36, Ref 6: Rey Educ Res. 2011; -> Typo: Should be "Rev Educ Res."

Please perform a final thorough check to ensure all in-text citations have a corresponding entry in the reference list and that all references are correctly formatted according to PLOS ONE guidelines.

**********

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:  Prof. Ekramul Islam

**********

[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: Gender dynamics Review Report.docx

Attachment

Submitted filename: Rview report PLos.docx

Gender dynamics in the relationship among student-teacher relationships, academic task engagement, academic task value, and positive developmental outcomes

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Abren,

Thank you for submitting your revised manuscript to PLOS ONE.  Our two reviewers have completed the review and the results they gave were both positive. Therefore, after making the revisions based on the reviewers' comments, it can be accepted

Please submit your revised manuscript by Jan 17 2026 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 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,

Xiaopeng Wu

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.

Additional Editor Comments:

This revision has basically addressed the comments raised by the reviewers. After the revision based on the reviewers' opinions, it can be accepted

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

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #2: 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: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

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

The PLOS Data policy

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

Reviewer #1: The authors are to be congratulated on a strong piece of research. The revisions have significantly strengthened the manuscript. I recommend acceptance. A final, careful proofread is recommended to polish minor grammatical issues and improve sentence flow.

Reviewer #2: This is a well-structured, methodologically sound, and theoretically grounded study that addresses an important and under-researched topic—gender differences in educational processes and outcomes in an Ethiopian context. The use of Multi-Group Structural Equation Modeling (MGSEM) is appropriate and rigorous. The manuscript is clearly written, and the findings have meaningful implications for educational practice and policy. I recommend acceptance with minor revisions.

Minor Concerns and Suggestions for Revision

1. Abstract

The abstract is clear but could be slightly more accessible to a broader audience. Consider rephrasing statistical results (e.g., “account for” → “were associated with”) to better reflect the correlational design.

2. Introduction

The link between academic task value and positive developmental outcomes could be more explicitly theorized. Consider strengthening the theoretical justification using Expectancy–Value Theory.

3. Methods

Sampling: Clarify how the 13 classrooms were selected (e.g., random lottery from all Grade 9–10 classrooms in the five schools).

Model Fit Indices: The manuscript correctly reports CMIN/DF < 5 as acceptable, but earlier versions contained an error (CMIN/DF < 0.50). Ensure this correction is consistent throughout.

4. Results

Table 1 (Descriptive Statistics): Include results of independent samples t-tests (t-values, p-values) to support claims of gender differences.

R² Reporting: Ensure that all references to R² are correctly labeled (not as β) and that p-values are not incorrectly associated with R².

Confidence Intervals: Correct minor typos (e.g., “40% CI” → “95% CI”) in indirect effects reporting.

5. Discussion

Cultural Context: Briefly speculate on how Ethiopian cultural norms (e.g., gender roles, educational values) may explain the observed gender differences.

Citation Alignment: Ensure all citations directly support the claims made (e.g., replace [33] with a more relevant reference if needed).

6. Limitations

Explicitly acknowledge the cross-sectional design as a limitation for causal inference.

Note the gender imbalance in the sample (59.2% female), but clarify that this reflects the actual student population in Bahir Dar.

7. References

Ensure all references are complete and correctly formatted (e.g., Reference #6 should include full author list: Roorda et al., 2011).

Prefer citing foundational theoretical works (e.g., Lerner et al., 2005, 2011) over measurement tool references when discussing the Five Cs model.

Editorial and Formatting Issues

Correct minor typographical errors (e.g., “Lickert” → “Likert”, “significant” → “significant”).

Ensure all acronyms are defined at first use (e.g., PYD on page 14).

Standardize decimal places and formatting across tables.

**********

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:  Prof. Dr. Md. Ekramul Islam

**********

[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.

Attachments

Attachment

Submitted filename: Plos Reviewer report.docx

Gender dynamics in the relationship among student-teacher relationships, academic task engagement, academic task value, and positive developmental outcomes

PONE-D-25-33636R2

Dear Dr Getahun Tadesse Abren, M.A.

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,

Xiaopeng Wu

Academic Editor

PLOS One