PONE-D-25-15954-->-->How Does Value Integration Impact EFL Oral English Learning? Textbook Analysis and Learner Perspective-->-->PLOS ONE?>

Dear Dr. Yang,

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,

Dawit Dibekulu, PhD

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. Thank you for stating the following financial disclosure:

 [This paper is supported by the Educational Reform Research Project of Jiangxi Agricultural University, with the project title ''Deep Reform and Practice of College English Speaking under the Background of Great Ideological and Political Education'', grant number 2023B2ZZ53.].

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.

3. We note that your Data Availability Statement is currently as follows: [All relevant data are within the manuscript and its Supporting Information files.]

Please confirm at this time whether or not your submission contains all raw data required to replicate the results of your study. Authors must share the “minimal data set” for their submission. PLOS defines the minimal data set to consist of the data required to replicate all study findings reported in the article, as well as related metadata and methods (https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-minimal-data-set-definition).

For example, authors should submit the following data:

- The values behind the means, standard deviations and other measures reported;

- The values used to build graphs;

- The points extracted from images for analysis.

Authors do not need to submit their entire data set if only a portion of the data was used in the reported study.

If your submission does not contain these data, please either upload them as Supporting Information files or deposit them to a stable, public repository and provide us with the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers. For a list of recommended repositories, please see https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/recommended-repositories.

If there are ethical or legal restrictions on sharing a de-identified data set, please explain them in detail (e.g., data contain potentially sensitive information, data are owned by a third-party organization, etc.) and who has imposed them (e.g., an ethics committee). Please also provide contact information for a data access committee, ethics committee, or other institutional body to which data requests may be sent. If data are owned by a third party, please indicate how others may request data access.

4. When completing the data availability statement of the submission form, you indicated that you will make your data available on acceptance. We strongly recommend all authors decide on a data sharing plan before acceptance, as the process can be lengthy and hold up publication timelines. Please note that, though access restrictions are acceptable now, your entire data will need to be made freely accessible if your manuscript is accepted for publication. This policy applies to all data except where public deposition would breach compliance with the protocol approved by your research ethics board. If you are unable to adhere to our open data policy, please kindly revise your statement to explain your reasoning and we will seek the editor's input on an exemption. Please be assured that, once you have provided your new statement, the assessment of your exemption will not hold up the peer review process.

4. 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.

5. 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 (if provided):

[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: Partly

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: No

**********

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

The PLOS Data policy

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

Reviewer #1: It is a good manuscript because it describes the stages of a correct scientific research, which is supported by empirical data from an appropriate or representative sample size as a basis for drawing conclusions. The researcher has analyzed the data quite carefully and the conclusions that has drawn are correct.

The researcher has provided all data completely and without limitations as a basis for his research findings which are explained in this manuscript.

This manuscript is presented using correct, clear and unambiguous English standards. It's just that there are a few things that need to be improved in writing.

Things that need to be improved or corrected are:

A. In the References section:

1. Abdul Rahim, H., & Jalalian Daghigh, A. (2019) is not in this manuscript excerpt. It should be removed from the references section

2. The writing of the Volume of the articles are not italicized, Check Afif et al (2020), Bates (2019), Briggs & Kim (2020), Coleman & Leider (2013), Feng (2017), Herrera (2019), Keskin (2013), Kusramadhani et al., (2022), Li (2023), and Lin & Jackson (2022), and the rest. Almost all volumes of the article in the references are written in italics. It should be changed to upright.

3. Pratiwi (2023) in the citation should be Pratiwi et al (2023) because the author is not 1 person

4. Lin, J. C., & Jackson, L. (2022) in the citation in 2023, while in the references it is written in 2022. Need to check.

5. In the references it is written Qoyyimah, U., Singh, P., Exley, B., Doherty, C., & Agustiawan, Y. (2020) in the citation written Qoyyimah et al., (2023). Need to check what year.

6. In the references it is written Pentón Herrera, L. J. (2019). It is better to start from the surname to Herrera, P. l. J. (2019).

7. The Guide for College English Teaching (2020 edition should be included in the references

8. In the citation it is written (Lu, 2022) while in the references it is written Lu, J., Liu, Y., An, L., & Zhang, Y. (2022). In the citation it needs to be changed to (Lu et al., 2022).

9. Zhang, X., & Lütge, C. (2023) is not in the citation, it should be removed from the references.

B. The Abstract section has introduced the research topic, the number of verbal text samples, and how to analyze the research data clearly, but has not stated the reasons for the importance of conducting the research, the purpose of conducting the research, and the instruments for collecting data to obtain 273 verbal text samples. Likewise, it is also necessary to explain what the survey is like.

C. In the introduction section, it is necessary to add what problems occur related to the moral content and values of the EFL English textbooks.

D. The methodology section of this manuscript needs to be organized systematically. First, explain specifically the type of mixed method research used and the reasons for applying this type. Second, explain the population and sample or subject of the research, as well as the sampling technique (Explain the process and criteria used to select samples or participants of the research). Third, explain the tools for collecting data and the method/process of collecting the data. Fourth, explain the data analysis technique. Since this research uses a Mixed Method, it is necessary to explain which data are analyzed using quantitative analysis and which data are analyzed qualitatively.

E. The results of the study are explained in this manuscript comprehensively, this is very good. It just needs to be added with the interpretation or discussion. A good manuscript is not enough to just explain the findings, it needs to be added why the findings are like that.

F. In the limitation section, it is necessary to add the limited questions in the survey (only 4 questions) to ask learner attitudes and preferences on value integration is not comprehensive.

G. At the end of this manuscript, the implications of this study need to be added.

Reviewer #2: Dear Xixi Yang,

The revision of this manuscript is mostly found in the introduction and in the body of the manuscript.

1. Introduction: as the fundamental section in which the background knowledge, significant phenomena or issues, and the synthesizing theory and related previous studies, the author has to describe and explain the hypothesis or research questions at the end of the introduction.

2. All the sub title do not follow the rules of title, author has correct all of them.

Reviewer #3: This manuscript presents a valuable mixed-methods study examining value integration in EFL oral English textbooks and its impact on learners. The research design is rigorous, combining quantitative content analysis with qualitative textual analysis using Martin and White’s (2005) Appraisal Theory framework, supplemented by learner surveys. The study makes important contributions to understanding how moral values are embedded in language teaching materials and their perceived effects on students’ development.

However, there are a few areas where the manuscript could be further strengthened to enhance the overall impact (see the attached file).

**********

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: Saifurahman Rohi

Reviewer #3: 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.

Attachments

Attachment

Submitted filename: pone-d-25-15954_reviewer.docx

Attachment

Submitted filename: PONE-D-25-15954_reviewer.pdf

Attachment

Submitted filename: Referee report_textbook analysis.pdf

Moral Integration Influences English as a Foreign Language (EFL) Oral English Learning: Evidence from Textbook Analysis and Learner Feedback

PONE-D-25-15954R1

Dear Dr. Yang,

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,

Dawit Dibekulu, PhD

Academic Editor

PLOS One

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments: