-->PONE-D-25-53622-->-->Understanding Teamwork Experiences of Neurodivergent Students: A Phenomenological Exploration of Conflict and Collaboration in Engineering Teams-->-->PLOS One

Dear Dr. Sperry,

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.

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

After evaluating the manuscript in light of the reviewer feedback and PLOS ONE publication criteria, I find that the study meets the journal’s standards for technical soundness, ethical conduct, and transparency of data availability. The qualitative design is appropriate for the research questions posed, and the analytic approach is sufficiently described to support the reported findings.

Changes required for acceptance:

The authors must strengthen methodological clarity regarding participant classification. Specifically, the criteria used to define the study population should be more precisely articulated, and the scope of interpretation should be aligned with those criteria. Any statements in the Results or Discussion that could be interpreted as broadly representative of clinically defined groups should be revised to reflect the actual composition of the sample. In addition, the Discussion should more clearly delineate the interpretive boundaries of the findings, particularly where broader group-based distinctions might otherwise be inferred.

Recommended changes:

To further improve clarity and reader guidance, the authors are encouraged to expand the limitations section to explicitly situate the findings within the chosen study design and sampling framework. Minor refinements to the discussion linking empirical observations to the conceptual framework would also enhance coherence, provided these links remain grounded in the data.

Resolution of reviewer advice:

There are no conflicting recommendations among the reviews. All feedback is complementary and can be addressed through clarification, reframing, and strengthened discussion, without the need for additional data collection or changes to the core methodology.

Based on the above, and consistent with PLOS ONE’s emphasis on methodological rigor and transparency rather than perceived impact, I recommend Minor Revision, with acceptance contingent upon satisfactory revision addressing the required points outlined above.

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

Please submit your revised manuscript by Feb 19 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 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,

Ramandeep Kaur

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. 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. Please include your full ethics statement in the ‘Methods’ section of your manuscript file. In your statement, please include the full name of the IRB or ethics committee who approved or waived your study, as well as whether or not you obtained informed written or verbal consent. If consent was waived for your study, please include this information in your statement as well.

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:

Thank you for a thoughtful and timely qualitative exploration of teamwork experiences among neurodivergent engineering students. The manuscript is clearly written, methodologically coherent, and addresses an important gap in higher education research.

To strengthen the rigor and interpretive clarity of the study, the following revisions are required:

Required Revisions (for acceptance)

Clarify Participant Characterization

Please provide a stronger methodological rationale for including both formally diagnosed and self-identified neurodivergent participants.

Clearly distinguish these groups in the Methods section and ensure that conclusions do not assume diagnostic homogeneity.

Reframe interpretations where necessary to reflect perceived neurodivergence rather than clinically defined categories.

Temper Comparative Interpretations

In the absence of a neurotypical comparison group, please avoid language that implies contrastive or causal claims about experiences being unique to neurodivergent students.

Explicitly acknowledge this limitation in the Discussion and refine conclusions accordingly.

Recommended Revisions (to strengthen the manuscript)

Strengthen the Limitations Section

Expand the discussion on how self-identification and lack of comparison groups may influence transferability and interpretation.

Briefly suggest how future studies could address these gaps (e.g., comparative or mixed-methods designs).

Align the Conflict Management Framework

Clarify whether the conflict framework is used descriptively or interpretively, and ensure that claims remain grounded in participant narratives rather than theoretical extrapolation.

Overall, these revisions primarily involve clarification and reframing, not additional data collection. Addressing them will significantly strengthen the manuscript’s methodological transparency and interpretive precision.

[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?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented. -->

Reviewer #1: Partly

**********

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

Reviewer #1: N/A

**********

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

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.-->

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

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

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.-->

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

-->5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)-->

Reviewer #1: This study addresses an underexplored area in higher education: the lived experience of teamwork among neurodivergent students. Despite its strengths, the study included participants who self-reported as neurodivergent, although 50% had a credible diagnosis. The study should have included all the participants with an established diagnosis.

Second, while the study integrates a conflict management framework, it does not include a neurotypical comparison group, which makes it difficult to determine which experiences are unique to neurodivergent students as compared to neurotypicals. This may limit causal or contrastive interpretation

**********

-->6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (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

**********

[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.

-->

Understanding Teamwork Experiences of Neurodivergent Students: A Phenomenological Exploration of Conflict and Collaboration in Engineering Teams

PONE-D-25-53622R1

Dear Dr. Sperry,

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,

Ramandeep Kaur

Academic Editor

PLOS One

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments: