Dear Dr. Karamık,

We note that some of the comments of the reviewers refer to specific articles for you to cite. Please note that it is not mandatory that you cite these specific articles and you are welcome to seek alternatives manuscripts in the literature that are relevant to your manuscript’s content.

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,

Andrea Cioffi

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. 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.

3. Please ensure that you include a title page within your main document. You should list all authors and all affiliations as per our author instructions and clearly indicate the corresponding author

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.

[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: Yes

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 manuscript addresses an important and timely topic: the relationship between pre-service teachers’ acceptance of generative AI (GAI) and their AI literacy (AIL). The mixed-methods design, large sample size, and clear instruments are commendable. However, the paper requires substantial revision before it can be considered for publication. The following points highlight areas that need improvement.

a) The manuscript inconsistently refers to “General Artificial Intelligence (GAI)” instead of “Generative AI.” This is potentially misleading, as “general AI” has a different meaning in the literature. The terminology should be standardized throughout the paper.

b) The authors should explicitly define “AI literacy” and situate it within established frameworks (e.g., Long & Magerko, 2020; UNESCO, 2021).

c) The exclusive focus on pre-service teachers is a limitation. While their perspectives are valuable, they are not yet fully immersed in the realities of classroom practice. The authors should acknowledge this limitation and discuss how findings may differ from those of in-service teachers.

d) To strengthen the discussion, the authors should integrate literature on faculty and in-service teacher adoption of generative AI, which provides a more grounded perspective. Relevant studies include:

◦ Miranda-González, F. J., & Chamorro-Mera, A. (2025). Exploring the adoption of generative artificial intelligence tools among university teachers. Higher Education Research & Development. https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2025.2559648

◦ Chamorro-Mera, A., & Miranda-González, F. J. (2025). Gen-AI tools in academia: A cluster analysis of university faculty adoption. Multidisciplinary Journal for Education, Social and Technological Sciences, 12(2). https://doi.org/10.4995/muse.2025.23908

◦ Almisad, B., & Aleidan, A. (2025). Faculty perspectives on generative artificial intelligence: Insights into awareness, benefits, concerns, and uses. Frontiers in Education, 10, Article 1632742. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2025.1632742

◦ Singh, S., & Strzelecki, A. (2025). Academics as adopters of generative AI: An application of diffusion of innovations theory. Education and Information Technologies, 30(11), 20495–20522. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-025-13835-8

e) The description of the mixed-methods design is clear, but the rationale for choosing pre-service teachers over in-service teachers should be elaborated.

f) The qualitative sample (48 participants) is relatively small compared to the quantitative sample. The authors should justify how saturation was achieved and how representativeness was ensured.

g) The data availability statement is inconsistent: one section claims full availability, while another restricts access due to personal data. This contradiction must be resolved.

h) The findings are presented clearly, but the discussion could be more strongly tied to theoretical frameworks such as the Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) or Diffusion of Innovations Theory.

i) The authors should expand on the implications of the very low percentage of participants (6.1%) who received formal AI training. This is a critical finding that deserves more emphasis in terms of curriculum design and policy recommendations.

j) The abstract and introduction are overly verbose. Shorter, more concise sentences would improve readability.

k) The discussion should include a stronger reflection on ethical concerns (bias, privacy, transparency) and how these intersect with teacher education.

Reviewer #2: Include Recent and Relevant Literature

The manuscript would benefit from citing two recent studies directly aligned with generative AI awareness and the pedagogical use of AI in education. I strongly recommend adding the following references to strengthen the theoretical framework and discussion:

Semerci Şahin et al. (2025) – development of the Generative AI Awareness Scale for secondary school students, which directly relates to AI literacy and awareness measurement approaches.

Reference:

Semerci Şahin, R., Özbay, Ö., Çınar Özbay, S., & Durmuş Sarıkahya, S. (2025). Development of the generative artificial intelligence awareness scale for secondary school students in Türkiye. European Journal of Pediatrics, 184(9), 585. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00431-025-06435-8

Sarıkahya et al. (2025) – a qualitative study examining faculty members' experiences with ChatGPT in nursing education, highly relevant for understanding generative AI acceptance, pedagogical challenges, and literacy gaps.

Reference:

Sarıkahya, S. D., Özbay, Ö., Torpuş, K., Usta, G., & Özbay, S. Ç. (2025). The impact of ChatGPT on nursing education: A qualitative study based on the experiences of faculty members. Nurse Education Today, 152, 106755. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nedt.2025.106755

These studies will specifically enrich the authors’ sections on GAI acceptance, literacy, and discipline-based differences in attitudes toward AI.

Introduction – Reduce Repetition

Some sentences repeat similar ideas about AI's growing role in education. A brief refinement would improve clarity.

Conceptual Clarification

The manuscript alternates between “GAI” and “General Artificial Intelligence.” Please ensure consistent terminology throughout.

Figures 4 and 5

The thematic maps are informative but somewhat difficult to read due to resolution. Increasing clarity or resolution would strengthen presentation.

Discussion Section

The discussion is thorough; however, condensing overlapping ideas and explicitly linking the results to the newly suggested studies would improve coherence.

With these minor revisions addressed particularly the inclusion of the two recent and relevant references the manuscript will be suitable for publication.

**********

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: F. Javier Miranda

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.]

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.

Dear Dr. Karamık,

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,

Andrea Cioffi

Academic Editor

PLOS One

Journal Requirements:

1. 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.

2. 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:

Please, also address a small number of minor points to further strengthen transparency: (i) revise the Data Availability Statement to provide a clear, non-discretionary procedure for accessing the underlying dataset (and clarify whether a de-identified dataset can be shared); (ii) clarify the wording and measurement units for GenAI usage categories (as the current distribution may be open to misinterpretation); (iii) complement the main statistical comparisons with appropriate effect sizes (and, where feasible, confidence intervals); and (iv) slightly improve the integration of quantitative and qualitative findings by briefly stating how survey results informed the interview guide and by linking selected quotes to key quantitative patterns.

[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

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

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

The PLOS Data policy

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

Reviewer #1: I appreciate the revisions made to the manuscript. The authors have adequately addressed all the comments raised in the previous review round, and the changes introduced have improved the clarity and overall quality of the paper. I do not identify any remaining issues that require further modification.

In light of this, I consider the manuscript suitable for publication and recommend its acceptance.

**********

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: F. Javier Miranda

**********

[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.

Investigating the Correlation Between Candidate Teachers' Acceptance of Generative Artificial Intelligence and Artificial Intelligence Literacy Across Various Disciplines

PONE-D-25-59540R2

Dear Dr. Karamık,

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,

Andrea Cioffi

Academic Editor

PLOS One

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments: