AI literacy among basic school teachers in Ghana: A structural equation modelling analysis

Valentina Arkorful; Francis Arthur; Ernest Opoku; Ayishatu Ameen; Iddrisu Salifu; Sharon Abam Nortey; Solomon Adjatey Tetteh

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0347117

Peer Review History

Original SubmissionApril 11, 2025
4 Jan 2026 Decision Letter - Amir Karimi, Editor -->PONE-D-25-19123-->-->Basic School Teachers’ Artificial Intelligence Literacy in Ghana: A Variance-Based Structural Equation Modelling Approach-->-->PLOS One Dear Dr. Arthur, 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 18 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. 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 . 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, Amir Karimi, 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. In the online submission form, you indicated that “Data will be made available on reasonable request.” All PLOS journals now require all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript to be freely available to other researchers, either 1. In a public repository, 2. Within the manuscript itself, or 3. Uploaded as supplementary information. This policy applies to all data except where public deposition would breach compliance with the protocol approved by your research ethics board. If your data cannot be made publicly available for ethical or legal reasons (e.g., public availability would compromise patient privacy), please explain your reasons on resubmission and your exemption request will be escalated for approval. 3. Your ethics statement should only appear in the Methods section of your manuscript. If your ethics statement is written in any section besides the Methods, please delete it from any other section. 4. Please ensure that you refer to Figure 3 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 Table 4 in your text; if accepted, production will need this reference to link the reader to the Table. 6. 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? 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 Reviewer #2: Partly ******** -->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 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.-->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: No Reviewer #2: No ****** -->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 Reviewer #2: No ****** -->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: The manuscript presents a relevant study of AI literacy among basic school teachers in Ghana using a robust variance-based SEM approach. The main findings are novel and the statistical analysis is appropriate. However, substantial revisions are needed before publication. Major comments: 1) Please streamline the introduction and literature review, reducing repetition and focusing on the main research gaps and rationale. 2) Expand on sampling criteria, potential sources of bias (e.g. only teachers aware of AI), and discuss how this may affect generalizability. 3) Clearly present all model limitations, ensuring interpretation of nonsignificant paths and overall study constraints is balanced and cautious. 4) Revise the Data Availability Statement to comply with PLOS ONE policy: data must be fully accessible through a public repository or similar resource. 5) Integrate the Ethics, Funding, and Conflict of Interest disclosures appropriately within the manuscript sections. Minor comments: 1) Clarify some ambiguous sentences, especially in the discussion. 2) Check consistency of terminology and acronyms. 3) Improve structure: aim for concise paragraphs and clear transitions. 4) Ensure references are formatted according to PLOS ONE guidelines. Overall, the work is scientifically interesting and potentially suitable for publication after major revision addressing the above points. Reviewer #2: The manuscript addresses an important and timely topic concerning AI literacy among basic school teachers, and the study employs an appropriate methodological approach using PLS-SEM. However, several substantial revisions are required to enhance the scientific rigor and clarity of the work. First, although the statistical analysis is generally appropriate, it would benefit from deeper interpretation and additional analytical validation to strengthen the robustness of the findings. Second, the manuscript does not fully comply with the PLOS data availability policy, as the data are not openly accessible and are instead available only upon request, which is insufficient for publication. Third, while the paper is understandable, the writing requires considerable language editing to correct grammatical inconsistencies, reduce repetition, and improve the overall clarity and flow of ideas. Additionally, several core sections—such as the introduction, theoretical framework, discussion, and methodological justification—would benefit from tighter organization, stronger linkage to prior literature, and clearer articulation of the research gap and contributions. Ethical considerations are addressed but could be elaborated further to show stronger adherence to international standards. Overall, the manuscript has potential but requires major revisions to address methodological, structural, linguistic, and policy-related issues before it can be considered for publication. ****** -->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 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: Yes:Javid AbbasliJavid AbbasliJavid AbbasliJavid Abbasli 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. Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Research report.pdf Attachment Submitted filename: Research report.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0347117.r001
Revision 1
25 Mar 2026 Author Response RESPONSE TO REVIEWERS’ COMMENTS Manuscript ID: PONE-D-25-19123 Topic: Basic School Teachers’ Artificial Intelligence Literacy in Ghana: A Variance-Based Structural Equation Modelling Approach Refined Topic (Based on the Reviewer’s recommendation): AI Literacy among Basic School Teachers in Ghana: A Structural Equation Modelling Analysis Journal: PLOS One Dear Editor, We would like to thank you and the reviewers for reviewing this manuscript. Please, we have responded to the comments as follows: 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 Response: Thank you for this comment. Please, we have rectified it as follows: AI Literacy among Basic School Teachers in Ghana: A Structural Equation Modelling Analysis Valentina Arkorful1, Francis Arthur2, Ernest Opoku3, Ayishatu Ameen4, Iddrisu Salifu5, Sharon Abam Nortey2, Solomon Adjatey Tetteh2 1 College of Distance Education, University of Cape Coast, Cape Coast, Ghana 2 Department of Business and Social Sciences Education, Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences Education, University of Cape Coast, Cape Coast, Ghana 3 Institute of Education, School of Educational Development and Outreach, College of Education Studies 4 Department of Agricultural Economics and Extension, School of Agriculture, University of Cape Coast, Cape Coast, Ghana 5 Centre for Coastal Management- Africa Centre of Excellence in Coastal Resilience, Department of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences, University of Cape Coast, Cape Coast, Ghana Corresponding author E-mail: a.francis1608@gmail.com/ francis.arthur007@stu.ucc.edu.gh (FA) 2. In the online submission form, you indicated that “Data will be made available on reasonable request.” All PLOS journals now require all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript to be freely available to other researchers, either 1. In a public repository, 2. Within the manuscript itself, or 3. Uploaded as supplementary information. This policy applies to all data except where public deposition would breach compliance with the protocol approved by your research ethics board. If your data cannot be made publicly available for ethical or legal reasons (e.g., public availability would compromise patient privacy), please explain your reasons on resubmission and your exemption request will be escalated for approval. Response: Thank you for this comment. Please, we have indicated that: Availability of data and materials The datasets generated and/or analysed during the current study are not publicly available due to ethical and legal restrictions imposed by the University of Cape Coast (UCC) Institutional Review Board (IRB), which approved the study protocol. The data contain potentially sensitive information from human participants, including responses that could indirectly identify individuals or reveal personal and professional characteristics of basic school teachers. Public deposition of such data would therefore violate the conditions under which ethical approval was granted, as well as participants’ informed consent agreements guaranteeing confidentiality and anonymity. However, the data can be made available upon reasonable request for academic and non-commercial research purposes, subject to approval and in compliance with applicable ethical guidelines. Requests for data access should be directed to the Institutional Review Board (IRB), University of Cape Coast, via the official contact: irb@ucc.edu.gh. The IRB serves as an independent, non-author body responsible for reviewing and approving data access requests to ensure adherence to ethical standards and participant confidentiality. 3. Your ethics statement should only appear in the Methods section of your manuscript. If your ethics statement is written in any section besides the Methods, please delete it from any other section. Response: Thank you for this comment. Please, have deleted the section which was captioned “Ethics approval” under the “declarations”. 4. Please ensure that you refer to Figure 3 in your text as, if accepted, production will need this reference to link the reader to the figure. Response: Thank you for this comment. Please, we have stated that: Figure 3 shows the bootstrapping results from PLS-SEM. (see “Evaluation of Structural Model” section of the manuscript) 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 Table 4 in your text; if accepted, production will need this reference to link the reader to the Table. Response: Thank you for this comment. Please, we have referred to Table 4 in the text. (see “Discriminant validity” section of the manuscript) 6. 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.] Response: Thank you for this comment. 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 Reviewer #2: Partly Response: Thank you for the comments. Please, the manuscript is technically sound and also, the data support the conclusions of the study. 2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes Response: Thank you for this comment. 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: No Reviewer #2: No Response: Dear Reviewer, thank you for the comments. Please, we indicated that: Availability of data and materials The datasets generated and/or analysed during the current study are not publicly available due to ethical and legal restrictions imposed by the University of Cape Coast (UCC) Institutional Review Board (IRB), which approved the study protocol. The data contain potentially sensitive information from human participants, including responses that could indirectly identify individuals or reveal personal and professional characteristics of basic school teachers. Public deposition of such data would therefore violate the conditions under which ethical approval was granted, as well as participants’ informed consent agreements guaranteeing confidentiality and anonymity. However, the data can be made available upon reasonable request for academic and non-commercial research purposes, subject to approval and in compliance with applicable ethical guidelines. Requests for data access should be directed to the Institutional Review Board (IRB), University of Cape Coast, via the official contact: irb@ucc.edu.gh. The IRB serves as an independent, non-author body responsible for reviewing and approving data access requests to ensure adherence to ethical standards and participant confidentiality. 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 Reviewer #2: No Response: Thank you for the comments. Please, the manuscript has been presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English. 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: The manuscript presents a relevant study of AI literacy among basic school teachers in Ghana using a robust variance-based SEM approach. The main findings are novel and the statistical analysis is appropriate. However, substantial revisions are needed before publication. Response: Dear Reviewer, thank you for the comments. Please, we have addressed the comments below. Major comments: 1) Please streamline the introduction and literature review, reducing repetition and focusing on the main research gaps and rationale. Response: Dear Reviewer, thank you for the comments. Please, we have streamline and introduction and literature review. (see “Revised version of the manuscript). 2) Expand on sampling criteria, potential sources of bias (e.g. only teachers aware of AI), and discuss how this may affect generalizability. Response: Dear Reviewer, thank you for the comments. Please, we indicated that: Teachers were purposively selected based on their prior awareness of AI, which, while ensuring informed responses, may introduce selection bias and limit the generalizability of the findings to the broader population of basic school teachers in Ghana who may have limited or no exposure to AI. (see “Study design an population” section of the revised manuscript) 3) Clearly present all model limitations, ensuring interpretation of nonsignificant paths and overall study constraints is balanced and cautious. Response: Dear Reviewer, thank you for the comments. Please, we interpreted all the non-significant paths. (see “Evaluation of structural model” section of the revised manuscript). 4) Revise the Data Availability Statement to comply with PLOS ONE policy: data must be fully accessible through a public repository or similar resource. Response: Dear Reviewer, thank you for the comments. Please, we indicated that: Availability of data and materials The datasets generated and/or analysed during the current study are not publicly available due to ethical and legal restrictions imposed by the University of Cape Coast (UCC) Institutional Review Board (IRB), which approved the study protocol. The data contain potentially sensitive information from human participants, including responses that could indirectly identify individuals or reveal personal and professional characteristics of basic school teachers. Public deposition of such data would therefore violate the conditions under which ethical approval was granted, as well as participants’ informed consent agreements guaranteeing confidentiality and anonymity. However, the data can be made available upon reasonable request for academic and non-commercial research purposes, subject to approval and in compliance with applicable ethical guidelines. Requests for data access should be directed to the Institutional Review Board (IRB), University of Cape Coast, via the official contact: irb@ucc.edu.gh. The IRB serves as an independent, non-author body responsible for reviewing and approving data access requests to ensure adherence to ethical standards and participant confidentiality. (see “Availability of data and materials” section) 5) Integrate the Ethics, Funding, and Conflict of Interest disclosures appropriately within the manuscript sections. Response: Dear Reviewer, thank you for the comments. Please, we indicated that: Funding The authors have confirmed that they did not receive any financial support for the research, authorship, and publication of this article. Competing interests The authors declare that they have no competing interests. Also, the Ethics part of the study is at the materials and methods section. This was made so based on the Editor’s recommendation. Thank you We indicated that: Ethical considerations The study prioritised the ethical treatment of participants. Ethical approval for the study was granted by the Institutional Review Board of the University of Cape Coast (ID: UCCIRB/CES/2023/169). Following the approval, data collection took place from March 04, 2024, to July 26, 2024. All participants were made to sign written informed consent before taking part, and the researchers guaranteed the confidentiality and anonymity of their responses. In accordance with ethical guidelines, participants were free to withdraw from the study at any time without consequence. To ensure data security and privacy, information was stored securely and only the research team had access to it. Minor comments: 1) Clarify some ambiguous sentences, especially in the discussion. Response: Dear Reviewer, thank you for the comments. Please, we have rectified all ambiguous sentences, especially in the discussion. 2) Check consistency of terminology and acronyms. Response: Dear Reviewer, thank you for the comments. Please, we have checked and rectified any inconsistency issues in terms of terminology and acronyms. 3) Improve structure: aim for concise paragraphs and clear transitions. Response: Dear Reviewer, thank you for the comments. Please, we have improved the structure of the manuscript. 4) Ensure references are formatted according to PLOS ONE guidelines. Response: Dear Reviewer, thank you for the comments. Please, we have formatted the references to be in line with PLOS ONE guidelines. Overall, the work is scientifically interesting and potentially suitable for publication after major revision addressing the above points. Response: Dear Reviewer, thank you for the comments. Please, we revised the manuscript based on the suggestions. Thank you Reviewer #2: The manuscript addresses an important and timely topic concerning AI literacy among basic school teachers, and the study employs an appropriate methodological approach using PLS-SEM. However, several substantial revisions are required to enhance the scientific rigor and clarity of the work. First, although the statistical analysis is generally appropriate, it would benefit from deeper interpretation and additional analytical validation to strengthen the robustness of the findings. Response: Dear Reviewer, thank you for the comments. Please, the statistical analysis has been well interpreted and stated. (see “Results” section of the manuscript, thank you) Second, the manuscript does not fully comply with the PLOS data availability policy, as the data are not openly accessible and are instead available only upon request, which is insufficient for publication. Response: Dear Reviewer, thank you for the comments. Please, we have indicated that: Availability of data and materials The datasets generated and/or analysed during the current study are not publicly available due to ethical and legal restrictions imposed by the University of Cape Coast (UCC) Institutional Review Board (IRB), which approved the study protocol. The data contain potentially sensitive information from human participants, including responses that could indirectly identify individuals or reveal personal and professional characteristics of basic school teachers. Public d Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: RESPONSE TO REVIEWERS COMMENTS.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0347117.r002
29 Mar 2026 Decision Letter - Amir Karimi, Editor AI Literacy among Basic School Teachers in Ghana: A Structural Equation Modelling Analysis PONE-D-25-19123R1 Dear Dr. Arthur, 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, Amir Karimi, PhD Academic Editor PLOS One Additional Editor Comments (optional): Reviewers' comments: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0347117.r003
Formally Accepted
Acceptance Letter - Amir Karimi, Editor PONE-D-25-19123R1 PLOS One Dear Dr. Arthur, I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS One. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now being handed over to our production team. At this stage, our production department will prepare your paper for publication. This includes ensuring the following: * All references, tables, and figures are properly cited * All relevant supporting information is included in the manuscript submission, * There are no issues that prevent the paper from being properly typeset You will receive further instructions from the production team, including instructions on how to review your proof when it is ready. Please keep in mind that we are working through a large volume of accepted articles, so please give us a few days to review your paper and let you know the next and final steps. Lastly, if your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. 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. You will receive an invoice from PLOS for your publication fee after your manuscript has reached the completed accept phase. If you receive an email requesting payment before acceptance or for any other service, this may be a phishing scheme. Learn how to identify phishing emails and protect your accounts at https://explore.plos.org/phishing. If we can help with anything else, please email us at customercare@plos.org. Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access. Kind regards, PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff on behalf of Dr. Amir Karimi Academic Editor PLOS One https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0347117.r004

Open letter on the publication of peer review reports

PLOS recognizes the benefits of transparency in the peer review process. Therefore, we enable the publication of all of the content of peer review and author responses alongside final, published articles. Reviewers remain anonymous, unless they choose to reveal their names.

We encourage other journals to join us in this initiative. We hope that our action inspires the community, including researchers, research funders, and research institutions, to recognize the benefits of published peer review reports for all parts of the research system.

Learn more at ASAPbio .