Dear Dr. Lo,

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 Jun 12 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,

Ahmed Abdelwahab Ibrahim El-Sayed, PhD, MSN in Nursing Administration, BSc in Nursing

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 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.

Once you have amended this/these statement(s) in the Methods section of the manuscript, please add the same text to the “Ethics Statement” field of the submission form (via “Edit Submission”).

For additional information about PLOS ONE ethical requirements for human subjects research, please refer to http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-human-subjects-research .

3. Thank you for stating the following financial disclosure:

“The summer-bridge program in this study was supported by the University of California San Diego.”

Please state what role the funders took in the study. If the funders had no role, please state: "The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript."

If this statement is not correct you must amend it as needed.

Please include this amended Role of Funder statement in your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf.

4. Thank you for stating the following in the Acknowledgments Section of your manuscript:

“We thank the students from the summer-bridge program for sharing their perspectives and experiences. The summer-bridge program was supported by University of California San Diego.”

We note that you have provided funding information that is not currently declared in your Funding Statement. However, funding information should not appear in the Acknowledgments section or other areas of your manuscript. We will only publish funding information present in the Funding Statement section of the online submission form.

Please remove any funding-related text from the manuscript and let us know how you would like to update your Funding Statement. Currently, your Funding Statement reads as follows:

“The summer-bridge program in this study was supported by the University of California San Diego.”

Please include your amended statements within your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf.

5. In the online submission form, you indicated that “The datasets created and/or analyzed for this study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.”

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

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

6. 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,

Thank for your study

Your contribution is original

Reviewers provided you with detailed advice to enhance your manuscript

Your manuscript has good potential for publication in PLOS ONE

best regards,

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

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

Reviewer #4: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #1: N/A

Reviewer #2: N/A

Reviewer #3: N/A

Reviewer #4: 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: No

Reviewer #3: Yes

Reviewer #4: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

Reviewer #4: Yes

**********

Reviewer #1: The article under consideration for publication is well-structured, addresses an interesting study problem, and makes a significant contribution to the design of educational practices relevant to the development of higher education students, particularly those in transition to the second year. The qualitative methodological approach employed by the authors, which involves giving students a voice, enables a more integrated or holistic understanding of how students perceive these practices and whether they are meaningful to them.

The title of the article is an accurate reflection of its content.

In the introduction, the authors present a detailed account of the background to the study and the research question, providing a comprehensive overview of the context in which it was conducted and its significance in terms of educational practice and policy. This framework enables the reader to comprehend the scientific and social significance of the study.

The literature review addresses the existing research on the problem and identifies the strengths and limitations of other studies in their approach to the topic. Despite the dearth of studies involving higher education students during the second-year transition, it would have been beneficial to incorporate some more recent literature into the analysis.

In the methodological section, the authors provide a comprehensive account of the processes and procedures employed to develop the study, delineate the methodological perspective adopted (phenomenology) and justify its selection, identify the method of data collection in detail, and furnish a detailed description of how the participants were recruited, including information on time span (dates) and procedures, with particular attention to those aimed at guaranteeing reliability in the analysis.

With regard to data analysis, the present study describes each step of the content analysis of the students' reflections, as well as the process by which the conclusions were generated. This includes the criteria used to generate the themes, the number of coders involved, and the means of ensuring consistency between evaluators. The manuscript addresses ethical issues in an appropriate manner.

The presentation of the results adheres to the themes that emerged from the analysis. It offers a reflective analysis of the data obtained, augmented with quotations from the participants that substantiate the themes and the authors' interpretations.

The discussion of the results synthesizes the data obtained and confronts it with the existing literature. The authors demonstrate a clear intent to translate the knowledge obtained into educational practice or policy, explaining the implications of their findings and presenting concrete proposals.

The study's limitations are presented and discussed in detail.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that the Literature Review Section include references from more recent publications. Furthermore, the references included in the references list/section should be reviewed and corrected.

Reviewer #2: This is a well-executed and timely study that adds meaningful qualitative insights into second-year undergraduate experiences, a population often overlooked in higher education research. The use of a phenomenographic framework is appropriate and thoughtfully applied. The authors do an excellent job of connecting their findings to existing literature and highlighting practical implications for institutional policy and student support.

However, to comply with PLOS ONE's data policy, the authors should ensure that anonymized reflection data or a suitable sample of coded data is made openly accessible through a repository or supplementary material or clearly justify any restrictions on sharing.

Although the manuscript does not include statistical analyses �as it is not required for the methodology� because this study was Qualitative, however, this should be clearly stated in the limitations to avoid confusion for readers expecting like quantitative measures.

Overall, this is a valuable contribution to the field and would benefit from minor revisions regarding data availability compliance.

Reviewer #3: Introduction:

High-impact practices (HIPs) are teaching and learning approaches that significantly impact student learning, engagement, and success. For second-year university students, HIPs can be particularly beneficial in fostering academic momentum, promoting student engagement, and enhancing career readiness.

I agree that high-impact practices offer a range of benefits for second-year university students, from improved academic performance to enhanced career readiness. By incorporating HIPs into curriculum design and providing support and resources, universities can promote student engagement, success, and career development.

However, it would be useful for readers to know whether some of the students had the opportunity to use research skills as part of the project because you mentioned R1 doctoral university as part of the data collection site.

Methods

Phenomenography requires the use of diagrams, tables or figures. Your readers will find a diagrammatic representation of your results helpful in the results section.

Ethics, study setting and participants

More information is required on the mandatory weekly reflections from the participants. You selected students based on their academic performance. It is interesting to note that ethical clearance deemed this project a quality improvement.

Conclusion

This study is vital to support an underserved body of university students. Thank you for undertaking the study.

Reviewer #4: Dear Editor

Thank you for the opportunity to review this manuscript. I appreciate the effort and dedication of the authors in conducting this important study. Below, I have provided my comments and suggestions, which I hope will contribute to further strengthening the manuscript.

Best regards,

Dr Ali Afshari

Length of the article:

The article is overly long at 8,352 words (including references), especially for a qualitative study. The literature review and discussion sections could be shortened to improve readability and focus.

Lack of clarity in some findings in the abstract:

The abstract does not fully identify key findings, such as the superiority of academic, personal, and social outcomes over professional outcomes. Also, there is no mention of the concept of “sophomore slump,” which is prominent in the main text.

Repetition across sections:

Some material in the literature review, findings, and discussion sections is repetitive. For example, descriptions of the four dimensions of student development (academic, social, professional, and personal) are overly repeated across sections.

Limitations of the study sample:

The study was conducted at only one university, and its sample (133 students) may not be representative of more diverse populations at other institutions. This limitation reduces the generalizability of the findings.

Lack of long-term outcomes:

The article did not examine long-term outcomes, such as graduation rates or student retention. This limits the scientific value of the study for evaluating the effectiveness of the program.

Inadequate explanation of consent:

Although it is noted that consent from participants was not required due to the lack of identifying information, more explanation could have been provided about the ethical considerations associated with using students’ personal reflections.

Limited results in the professional dimension:

The findings related to professional development are less prominent than other dimensions (academic, social, personal). The article could have analyzed this weakness in more depth or explained its possible reasons.

Repetition of some references:

The frequent use of a few specific sources (e.g. [31, 62]) indicates an excessive reliance on a limited number of studies. More diversity in citations could have strengthened the arguments.

Vague suggestions for future research:

The suggestion for longitudinal studies in the discussion section is general and does not provide specific details about the methods or expected results.

Complexity of some terms without adequate explanation:

Some technical terms, such as "variation theory" or "phenomenography," may not be entirely clear to non-specialist readers because sufficient explanations are not provided in the text.

**********

what does this mean? ). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

Reviewer #3: Yes: Adeniyi Olanrewaju Adeleye

Reviewer #4: No

**********

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

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/ . PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org

Attachments

Attachment

Submitted filename: Review result.pdf

Dear Dr. Lo,

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 Jan 04 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.

• 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,

Ahmed Abdelwahab Ibrahim El-Sayed

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:

Dear Authors,

Thank you for your revision.

One reviewer has identified several minor issues that still need to be carefully addressed before we can proceed to a final editorial decision regarding your manuscript. Please review his comments thoroughly and make the necessary revisions.

[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 #3: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #4: All comments have been addressed

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

Reviewer #4: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #1: N/A

Reviewer #3: N/A

Reviewer #4: N/A

**********

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

The PLOS Data policy

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

Reviewer #4: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

Reviewer #4: Yes

**********

Reviewer #1: All proposed amendments have been integrated into the manuscript, resulting in a revised and enhanced version. With these modifications in place, I believe the article is now ready for publication.

Reviewer #3: Thank you for taking the time and effort to respond to my suggestions. I hope your work contributes to the broader learning and teaching.

Reviewer #4: Dear Authors,

Thank you for submitting this insightful qualitative study. The revised manuscript is well-structured overall, with clear implications for higher education programs, and the use of weekly reflections as data sources adds authenticity to the findings. The issues addressed in the new version have strengthened the article. However, while the study makes a valuable contribution, I have some suggestions to enhance clarity, conciseness, and generalizability.

Abstract:

The abstract effectively highlights the gap in qualitative research on high-impact practices (HIPs) for second-year students, providing a compelling rationale for the phenomenographic approach. To enhance readability, consider briefly specifying one example of a 'positive outcome' in each dimension to give readers a more vivid preview of the results."

Elaborate slightly on how the summer-bridge program's design influenced these outcomes (e.g., activity types), as this could strengthen the link to practical recommendations without exceeding word limits."

Introduction

Condense the discussion of first-year comparisons (lines 88-94) slightly to allocate more space for emerging trends in second-year retention, such as post-pandemic effects, to underscore timeliness."

For greater impact, suggest explicitly noting potential overlaps between dimensions (e.g., how social support influences personal efficacy, as hinted in lines 191-192) to invite future intersectional analyses."

To extend applicability, I recommend incorporating a brief discussion of how these challenges manifest in nursing and paramedical students, who often grapple with unique educational hurdles like integrating clinical simulations, managing high-stakes ethical dilemmas, and balancing rigorous coursework with early fieldwork—potentially adapting HIPs to boost clinical confidence and reduce attrition in these high-demand fields." The following references are suggested for writing this paragraph:

Afshari A, Khodaveisi M, Sadeghian E. Exploring the educational challenges in emergency medical students: A qualitative study. Journal of Advances in Medical Education & Professionalism. 2021 Apr;9(2):79.

Methods

Why did you use the phenomenological method in this study? Explain.

For enhanced methodological contribution, suggest discussing potential biases in peer mentor checks of reflections and how they were mitigated, which could inform adaptations for health professions training where mentor feedback is common."

Describe in detail how you selected the samples. Which of the purposive methods did you use?

**********

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: Yes: Adeniyi Adeleye

Reviewer #4: No

**********

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

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.

In their own words: A qualitative examination of student experiences with high-impact practices during the second-year transition

PONE-D-24-02966R2

Dear Author,

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,

Ahmed Abdelwahab Ibrahim El-Sayed

Academic Editor

PLOS One

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Dear Authors,

Your contribution is original. Thank you for all your efforts done to enhance your study. I can accept your manuscript in its current form for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations.