Dear Dr. Al-Bataineh,

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 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 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,

Zahra Masood Bhutta

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

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

Reviewer #3: No

**********

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: No

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

Reviewer #3: No

**********

Reviewer #1: Sampling Bias (Page 16): The use of convenience sampling may limit generalizability. Consider acknowledging this limitation and discussing strategies to mitigate bias (e.g., stratified sampling in future studies).

Cross-Sectional Design (Page 10): The design precludes causal inferences. Clarify this limitation and recommend longitudinal studies to establish causality.

Instrument Validation (Page 17–18): While scales like the Ethical Leadership Scale are cited, no evidence is provided for their validity in Jordanian healthcare contexts. Include pilot testing results or cultural adaptation details.

Effect Sizes (Results Section): Report effect sizes (e.g., Cohen’s *d*, R²) alongside *p*-values to assess practical significance (e.g., Table 4–7).

Healthcare-Specific Dynamics (Introduction/Discussion): The manuscript briefly mentions Jordan’s healthcare challenges but does not deeply contextualize how ethical leadership operates in high-stress, resource-constrained hospital environments. Expand using literature on nursing/healthcare leadership.

Mechanisms of Mediation (Discussion): The discussion of how internal motivation mediates the relationship is superficial. Link findings to psychological constructs like psychological safety or organizational identification (see recommended studies below).

Multicollinearity (Page 19): VIF values of 1.00 (Page 19) are unusually low. Verify calculations and ensure multicollinearity diagnostics are accurately reported.

Normality Testing (Page 19): The Kolmogorov-Smirnov test is sensitive to large samples. Supplement with visual checks (e.g., Q-Q plots) in supplementary files.

Data Accessibility (Page 7): The statement “All relevant data are within the manuscript and its Supporting Information files” conflicts with the sample size of 330. Clarify if raw data (e.g., anonymized responses) are included in supplementary files.

Integrate these studies to contextualize ethical leadership and motivation in healthcare:

Linking ethical leadership to nurses’ internal whistleblowing through psychological safety, DOI: 10.1177/09697330241268922

Ethical Leadership, Flourishing, and Extra-Role Behavior Among Nurses, DOI: 10.1177/23779608211062669 as it demonstrates ethical leadership’s impact on nurse outcomes, aligning with your focus on healthcare performance.

Nursing Human Resource Practices and Hospitals’ Performance Excellence: The Mediating Role of Nurses’ Performance, DOI: 10.23750/abm.v92iS2.11247 it supports the mediating role of employee performance in organizational outcomes, reinforcing your theoretical framework.

How Decent Work Influences Internal Whistleblowing Intentions in Nurses: The Parallel Mediating Roles of Felt Obligation and Organisational Identification, DOI: 10.1111/jan.16429

Sparking nurses’ creativity: the roles of ambidextrous leadership and psychological safety, DOI: 10.1186/s12912-024-02277-1

Hypothesis Formatting (Page 15): Use consistent notation (e.g., H₀₁, H₀₂).

Table Clarity (Tables 2–7): Label predictors and outcomes clearly (e.g., “Ethical Leadership → Internal Motivation”).

Grammar: Revise awkward phrasing (e.g., Page 10: “Data was gathered from 330 clinical and administrative employees from February to March 2024 using convenience sampling. from five hospitals...”).

Reviewer #2: 1.Update research articles for updated years

2.Formatting issues

3.Hypothesis table required

4.Give more clarity to results discussion

5.Literature review is missing and support of articles given in discussion and conceptual model draw after results.

Reviewer #3: Critical Review: Major Revisions Required

1.Incorrect Hypothesis Formulation

The paper exclusively presents null hypotheses (e.g., "There is no significant impact of...") rather than alternative hypotheses aligned with the theoretical framework.

Correction: Hypotheses should reflect expected directional relationships. For example:

H₁: "Ethical leadership has a significant positive impact on internal motivation among clinical and administrative employees in northern Jordanian hospitals (public/private/university)."

2.Weak Theoretical Foundation

Each hypothesis lacks grounding in prior empirical evidence.

Action Required: Cite 2–3 key studies per hypothesis to justify expected relationships (e.g., "Consistent with Brown et al. (2005) and Walumbwa et al. (2011), we posit that...").

3.Incomplete Scale Documentation

Scoring methods are unclear (e.g., interpretation of Likert-scale means).

Revisions Needed:

1.Clarify directionality: "Higher item scores indicate stronger employee performance (EP)."

Provide example items (e.g., "Sample EP item: 'I consistently exceed performance targets.'").

Report Composite Reliability (CR > 0.7) and Average Variance Extracted (AVE > 0.5) for validity.

2.Flawed Analytical Sequence

Descriptive statistics (means, SDs, correlations) must precede regression/SEM.

Critical Issue: The null hypotheses cannot support the final model. Use:

Bootstrap mediation analysis (PROCESS/AMOS) with 95% CIs for indirect effects.

SEM fit indices (CFI/RMSEA) if structural paths are tested.

3.Discussion Lacks Hypothesis-Level Analysis

Contrast results with prior work for each hypothesis (e.g., "Contrary to Javed et al. (2017), our findings show...").

4.Explain unexpected outcomes (e.g., low CSR6 loading).

5.Missing "Limitations" Section

Sampling bias (convenience sampling).

Cross-sectional design (causality cannot be inferred).

Context specificity (Jordanian healthcare only).

6.Overall Quality Concerns

The paper suffers from unclear logic (e.g., mismatched hypotheses/model) and requires extensive restructuring.

Recommendation: Study high-quality exemplars (e.g., Academy of Management Journal articles on ethical leadership).

**********

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: 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.

Dear Dr. Raya Al-Bataineh,

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 Feb 06 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 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,

Othman A. Alfuqaha, Ph.D.

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 (if provided):

Dear Authors,

After careful consideration of the reviewers’ reports, I am pleased to inform you that the decision on your manuscript is Minor Revision. The reviewers found the study to be of merit; however, several points require clarification and minor improvement. Please revise your manuscript by addressing all reviewers’ comments point by point and provide a clear response explaining how each comment has been handled in the revised version.

In addition, please ensure that the manuscript is thoroughly edited for English language quality by a native English speaker to improve clarity, grammar, and overall readability.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript and response to reviewers within the specified revision period.

Kind regards,

[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

Reviewer #4: All comments have been addressed

**********

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

Reviewer #2: Partly

Reviewer #4: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #2: No

Reviewer #4: Yes

**********

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

The PLOS Data policy

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #4: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #4: Yes

**********

Reviewer #2: Revise Data Analysis chapters: Having errors like regression analysis for demographics and most of variable are insignificant.no discussion regarding this.clarity of results is missing.

Adopt professional reading format for readers interests e.g in sum,authors highlights,it would be passive voice and n Researcher tone like we,you,i words.

Reviewer #4: The authors have addressed the previous reviewer comments very well. The revisions improved the clarity, coherence, and overall quality of the paper.

Minor revision:

1. The manuscript is comprehensive but lengthy especially the Literature Review. Consider reducing repetition and focusing on the most relevant studies to improve readability.

2. The conclusion would benefit from more specific and actionable recommendations for hospital managers and policymakers based on the study findings.

3. Ensure consistency in terminology (e.g., “internal motivation” vs. “intrinsic motivation”) and headings.

**********

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: No

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.

The MEDIATING ROLE OF INTERNAL MOTIVATION ON THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN ETHICAL LEADERSHIP AND EMPLOYEE PERFORMANCE IN HOSPITALS IN NORTHERN JORDAN

PONE-D-24-57949R2

Dear Dr. Raya Al-Bataineh,

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,

Othman A. Alfuqaha, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS One

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Dear Authors,

I am pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been accepted for publication. Congratulations on this achievement.

Reviewers' comments: