Dear Dr. Xie,

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 23 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.. 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.. 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.. 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 . 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 . 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 . 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,

Cheong Yu Stephen Chan

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 research was funded by Guangxi Philosophy and Social Science Foundation Project (Nos:23FSH028)”

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. Please note that your Data Availability Statement is currently missing the repository name. If your manuscript is accepted for publication, you will be asked to provide these details on a very short timeline. We therefore suggest that you provide this information now, though we will not hold up the peer review process if you are unable.

4. Please ensure that you refer to Figures 1 to 4 in your text as, if accepted, production will need this reference to link the reader to the figure.

5. We note you have included a table to which you do not refer in the text of your manuscript. Please ensure that you refer to Tables 1 and 2 in your text; if accepted, production will need this reference to link the reader to the Table.

6. Please include captions for your Supporting Information files at the end of your manuscript, and update any in-text citations to match accordingly. Please see our Supporting Information guidelines for more information: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/supporting-information.

7. 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.

Additional Editor Comments:

I endorsed two reviewers' comments. The manuscript needs clearer conceptual framing of “aging imagination,” with a working definition, contrasts to related constructs, and a theoretical model. Methodologically, the authors should separate filial piety’s reciprocal and authoritarian dimensions, provide full item wordings and stronger validity evidence. Results tables require correction of confidence intervals and coefficient reporting. Substantively, the discussion should avoid over-interpretation. Finally, the paper would benefit from practical, evidence-based recommendations for interventions.

[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: Partly

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: No

**********

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.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

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: No

**********

Reviewer #1: 1. The abstract effectively summarizes the study, but it can be enhanced by simplifying some of the language and focusing on the core findings more directly. Additionally, providing a bit more context on the cultural implications of filial piety could help readers unfamiliar with the topic understand the broader significance.

2. The research questions and hypotheses are central to the structure of this study, but there seems to be a mismatch between them that could confuse readers or undermine the clarity of the study's design. Specifically:

Research Question 1 (Q1) focuses on routine (daily) grandparent-grandchild communication and its influence on young people's perceptions of aging.

Research Question 2 (Q2) looks at ritualistic communication and its impact on the same outcome.

However, the hypotheses (H1 and H2) do not fully align with these research questions. Both hypotheses center on intergenerational relations as a mediator, but they do not clearly differentiate between how routine and ritualistic communication might work differently through these relations.

3. The discussion effectively summarizes the study's findings and their contributions to the field, but it would benefit from a more critical and in-depth analysis of the results. Specifically, the discussion could explore the following areas more deeply:

3.1 Theoretical Implications: While the study connects its findings with existing theories like stereotype internalization theory, it would be valuable to expand on how the findings either challenge or extend these theories. For example, how do the specific mechanisms (daily vs. ritualistic communication) align with or contradict existing models of intergenerational communication and aging? Are there any contradictions or nuances that haven't been addressed yet?

3.2 Cultural Context: The study is grounded in the Chinese family context, which is a significant contribution. However, a more critical exploration of filial piety in relation to aging imagination would enrich the discussion. Given that filial piety is a cultural value that varies significantly across different societies, how might these findings differ in other cultural contexts? Could there be alternative interpretations or dimensions of filial piety that the study has not fully addressed?

4. The study discusses a phenomenon in Chinese society, which is valuable. However, it would be helpful to more explicitly explain why this specific focus on Chinese society is important and how the findings contribute to the existing body of literature. For example, what unique insights can this study offer in the context of Chinese cultural values, and how does it extend or challenge existing research on intergenerational communication and aging perceptions? A clearer articulation of the study's contribution will strengthen the significance of the findings and their relevance to broader discussions in the field.

Reviewer #2: The manuscript examines how grandparent–grandchild daily and ritualistic communication relate to Chinese youths’ “aging imagination,” mediated by intergenerational relations and filial piety. This is timely and relevant to gerontology, family sociology, and communication studies. However, this manuscript need to strengthen construct clarity, measurement validity, analytic rigor (controls, robustness), and reporting transparency. Reframe causal language, fix table inconsistencies, and improve data availability.

Major comments with detailed suggestions

1. Conceptual clarity and theoretical framing. Regarding the definition and scope of “aging imagination,” the construct appears to mix self-oriented imagined aging (e.g., planning, acceptance) with broader attitudes toward aging. The current description does not distinguish it from adjacent constructs (e.g., ageism, aging anxiety, future time perspective). I suggest providing a working definition, explicitly contrasting it with related constructs, and including a brief theoretical model figure that positions aging imagination among them.

2. The authors argue that daily communication has stronger effects than ritualistic communication, primarily on frequency grounds. They should expand the mechanism by drawing on social learning, intimacy, and role reciprocity; explicitly hypothesize moderators that shape relative effects (e.g., co-residence, geographic proximity, migration status, digital media substitution for rituals, quality of family climate); and add a paragraph explaining how ritualistic contact can be potent in value-activation contexts (e.g., during key rites), potentially boosting the normative (authoritarian) component of filial piety.

3. The authors discuss filial piety as a dual construct (reciprocal vs. authoritarian) but analyze it as a single composite. They should separate and report the two subdimensions.

4. The manuscript does not include full item wordings for all constructs, and the reported psychometric evidence is limited. Please provide full item lists and additional validity evidence.

5. Harman’s single-factor test is inadequate on its own. Add a CFA-based test comparing a one-factor model with the proposed multi-factor model and report the change in fit indices.

6. No covariates are included, so potential confounds remain. Report models with and without controls to demonstrate robustness of the mediation effects. At a minimum, include plausible confounders and family-structure controls. Research design and inference should reflect these additions.

7. There is an inconsistency about recruiting “experts and practitioners” versus “young people,” and the exclusion criteria are vague. Please clarify the sampling frame and operationalize exclusions.

8. In Tables 5 and 6, the direct-effect confidence intervals are inconsistent with the point estimates, and it is unclear whether coefficients are standardized or unstandardized. Please correct and clarify.

9. Avoid over-interpretation and offer more nuanced discussion. Recast the discussion to emphasize associations and plausible mechanisms. Integrate literature on digital intergenerational contact (e.g., whether WeChat-based contact substitutes for or complements face-to-face interactions), and note potential negative dynamics (e.g., ritual obligations perceived as pressure may undermine positive aging imagination for some youth).

10. Provide practical recommendations with guardrails. For example, in educational interventions, propose short, evidence-based modules that promote reflective dialogue with grandparents (e.g., guided oral history, co-learning technology tasks), rather than merely advocating “more contact.”

11. Add the IRB approval number/code if available.

12. Regarding writing and formatting, clean up spacing and punctuation throughout (e.g., change “relations ,” and “youths’constructive” to “relations,” and “youths’ constructive”).

**********

what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.). 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 For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy..-->

Reviewer #1: No

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.

The impact of grandparent-grandchild interactions on the imagination of aging among Chinese youth groups: The chain mediating role of intergenerational relations and filial piety concept

PONE-D-25-46690R1

Dear Dr. Xie,

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  and clicking the ‘Update My Information' link at the top of the page. For questions related to billing, please contact  and clicking the ‘Update My Information' link at the top of the page. For questions related to billing, please contact  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,

Cheong Yu Stephen Chan, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS One

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. 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.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

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

Reviewer #2: I appreciate the hard work of the authors. All of the comments have been addressed in this version. I have no further comments on this manuscript.

**********

what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.). 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 For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy..-->

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes: Cheung Vanessa Hoi MeiCheung Vanessa Hoi MeiCheung Vanessa Hoi MeiCheung Vanessa Hoi Mei

**********