-->PONE-D-25-60904-->-->The interaction between rumination and job embeddedness among trainee nurses duringinternship: a multicenter longitudinal study-->-->PLOS One

Dear Dr. wang,

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 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,

Ahmed Abdelwahab Ibrahim El-Sayed

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:

“The study was supported by Project of China Hospital Reform and Development Research Institute of Nanjing University ,Nanjing Drum Tower Hospital and Aid project of Jiangsu Ningai Medical Development & Medical Aid Foundation(NDYGN2024064).”

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. Thank you for providing your underlying data as Supporting Information.

We note that the data set contains text or data that is not in English. Please note that PLOS is an English-language publisher, so we require data sets to be provided in English as well. Please upload an English-language version of your data set.

This will also allow us to determine if your data follows PLOS standards per our Data Availability policy here: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability

4. 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 move it to the Methods section and delete it from any other section. Please ensure that your ethics statement is included in your manuscript, as the ethics statement entered into the online submission form will not be published alongside your manuscript.

5. 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.

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.

Additional Editor Comments:

Dear Authors,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. Based on the reviewers’ evaluations, several substantive concerns have been raised that must be thoroughly addressed before further consideration of your manuscript.

We encourage you to carefully review the comments and submit a revised version that responds to each point.

[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: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

Reviewer #4: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

Reviewer #4: 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.-->

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

Reviewer #4: 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: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

Reviewer #4: 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: Title: The interaction between rumination and job embeddedness among trainee nurses

duringinternship: a multicenter longitudinal study.

I. Overall

II. Abstract

1. Although this is underpinned by the three key moments you described later, I think that clearly mentioning the study design is a non-negotiable requirement.

2. Please specify the instruments used in the abstract.

3. Keywords: Please, use the exact MeSH terms for the "Keywords" section to ensure better indexing.

III. Introduction

1. Line 44 ► What do you mean by “participants”?

2. Lines 48-50 ►“During clinical practice […] first time [4]”: I think that reference [4] does not support this claim.

3. Lines 50-53 ►“The transition […] practice stage [5]”: I think that reference [5] does not support this claim.

4. Lines 54-56 ►“Research has shown […] attentional resources [6]”: I think that reference [6] does not claim.

5. Lines 58-62 ►“More critically […] nursing talent echelon [8, 9]”: I think that reference [8,9] does NOT support the claim you provided, because both references refer to patients, not nursing students.

6. Lines 63-65 ►“Understanding the developmental trajectory […] job embeddedness [10]”: Since the reference [10] never measured job embeddedness, it cannot statistically support a claim about enhancing it.

7. Please revise the introduction to ensure every factual claim and contextual statement is supported by a robust, peer-reviewed source. This is critical for academic rigor and for accurately framing the research gap your work aims to address.

8. Lines 72-74 ► Lines 63-65 ► I think that your study is an empirical study, the phrase "aims to provide a theoretical foundation" might be slightly overstating the primary goal.

IV. Materials and methods

1. In adherence to the journal’s submission guidelines, please revise the section heading ‘Research methods’ to ‘Materials and Methods’.

2. Reorganize your Methods section with clear, non-overlapping subheadings.

3. The claim that "at least 200 cases were needed" for the LGM must be supported.

4. For an LGM, a simulation-based power analysis is the gold standard. Please provide details: target parameter, assumed effect size (with justification from prior literature), number of waves, and software/method used. Without this, the sample size is arbitrary.

5. Please provide a citation or empirical rationale for the anticipated 20% attrition rate.

V. Results

1. Table 2 shows an inconsistency in the percentage of rating categories.

2. What is your reference for establishing the rating categories for the two scales? Normally, these categories should be defined in the methods.

3. Reference [13] is included in the list of references, but is not cited in the text.

4. Figure 4 requires a legend to facilitate its reading.

VI. Discussion

1. Lines 207-209 ► “Bhuiya et al. [15] […] during work”: This claim does not belong to the reference [15]. The latter is about medical students, not nurses.

2. Lines 212-215 ►“Consequently […] nursing profession’s value [18,19 ]: It appears that reference [18] is entirely fictitious.

3. Lines 216-218 ►“Caring for Participants […] job embeddedness scores”: This claim need to be supported by at least one reference.

4. Lines 221-223 ►“From the perspective […] commitment weakening [5]”: This claim is not supported by the reference [5]. Actually, the key finding of the latter is that rumination is not only a direct pathway to depression but also a trigger for social withdrawal, which further deepens depressive symptoms.

5. Lines 225-226 ►“Emotionally […] negative cycle of rumination [20, 21]”: The two cited references do not provide support for the concept of "job embeddedness," as they do not investigate this construct. To support this claim, please cite literature that specifically defines and examines job embeddedness.

6. Lines 234-247 ►“Trainee nurses […] job embeddedness process [22]”: This 15-line discussion passage contains overinterpretation, distortion of facts, or speculation presented as evidence.

7. Overall, the discussion section lacks synthesis and scholarly depth. I strongly advise you to review the discussion section in question and ensure every sentence that engages with a source can be directly and justifiably traced back to that source’s actual content.

VII. References

1. “Meihua et al.” is cited in the text but absent from the reference list.

2. “Crossley et al. ” is formatted incorrectly in the text per the journal style.

3. What does the symbol [J] at the end of the titles mean?

4. It would be wise to include the DOI when possible.

5. Please verify the title of the reference [3].

6. The entries for these references are incomplete (eg. [11], [14], [17]).

7. It appears that reference [18] is entirely fictitious.

Reviewer #2: The revised manuscript entitled “The interaction between rumination and job embeddedness among trainee nurses during internship: a multicenter longitudinal study” is generally well structured and clearly written. The introduction is informative; however, the authors should carefully verify that the references cited are fully consistent with the statements made. The methodology is clearly described, although the sampling method should be explicitly stated. The results are well presented and appropriately discussed. In addition, the limitations section should be expanded to include aspects beyond the small sample size. Finally, the authors are encouraged to carefully check and standardize all references according to the Vancouver referencing style.

Detailed comments and specific remarks are provided in the attached file.

Reviewer #3: O manuscrito é tecnicamente sólido por apresentar um delineamento longitudinal adequado, com a coleta de dados realizada em três momentos, com uso de abordagens estatísticas robustas e confiáveis (Modelo de defazagem cruzada e modelo paralelo de crescimento latente). A descrição dos métodos foi realizada de maneira clara e apropriada para as respostas as questões da pesquisa. As análises estatísticas forão rigorosas e apresentadas de forma bem transparente. Os indices de ajuste dos modelos utilizados forão reportados adequadamente, e o teste de viés reforçou a confiabilidade dos resultados.

É uma pesquisa original e de relevancia por analisar a ruminação e o enraizamento no trabalho em enfermeiros estagiários, devido principalmente ao contexto de formação clínica.

As conclusões vão de encontro aos dados apresentados , todas as afirmações são sustentadas. O manuscrito é claro, bem estruturado e intelegível para todos, as tabelas são pertinentes e contribuem para compreensão dos achados.

Foi apresentada a aprovação do Comitê de Ética e Pesquisa, e o estudo informou a disponibilidade dos dados de acordo com as diretrizes da revista.

Algumas considerações: Sugiro embasar mais a discussão articulando com modelos teóricos clássicos e contempoâneos sobre o estresse ocupacional, adaptação profissional e saúde mental dos profissionais de saúde. Falar um pouco mais sobre as características culturais e organizacionais do contexto chinês, acrescentar exemplos específicos de intervenções institucionais aplicaveis ao programa de estágio em enfermagem.

Realizar pequenos ajustes na linguagem para melhorar a fluidez, em trechos maiores. Garantir que todas as siglas e abreviações estatísticas sejam definidas na primeira menção no texto.

Reviewer #4: The study presents a sound longitudinal design and an appropriate use of advanced statistical models; however, its contribution to disciplinary knowledge in nursing is limited. The inverse relationship between rumination and job embeddedness has already been widely documented in the literature, particularly in contexts where employability expectations influence the psychological wellbeing of nurses in training. The findings largely confirm predictable trends without offering new conceptual frameworks, additional explanatory variables, or innovative practical implications for nursing education or management. Furthermore, the construct of rumination is not sufficiently contextualised from a nursing perspective. Overall, the study stands out more for its methodological rigour than for making a substantive contribution to the advancement of nursing knowledge.

**********

-->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

Reviewer #2: Yes:EL FADELY ABDELMONIM

Reviewer #3: 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.

Attachments

Attachment

Submitted filename: PONE-D-25-60904 (R).pdf

-->PONE-D-25-60904R1-->-->The interaction between rumination and job embeddedness among trainee nurses duringinternship: a multicenter longitudinal study-->-->PLOS One

Dear Dr. Ying,

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 Apr 12 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,

Ahmed Abdelwahab Ibrahim El-Sayed

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:

Dear Authors,

Thank you for your revision. We appreciate the improvements made to the manuscript. However, in this round of review, the reviewer has raised some minor comments that need to be addressed carefully before we can proceed to a final decision regarding your study.

Please revise the manuscript accordingly and provide a detailed response to the reviewer’s comments.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

-->Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.-->

Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

Reviewer #3: 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?

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: Yes

Reviewer #2: Partly

Reviewer #3: Yes

Reviewer #4: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: I Don't Know

Reviewer #3: Yes

Reviewer #4: 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.-->

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

Reviewer #4: No

**********

-->5. 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: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

Reviewer #4: Yes

**********

-->6. 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: (No Response)

Reviewer #2: The following comments are provided to clarify remaining issues that were not fully addressed in the revised manuscript and that require further attention to ensure scientific accuracy and transparency.

1. The reviewer’s previous comment has not been addressed.

The abstract still reports a recovery rate of 93.53% for 405 questionnaires, whereas the Results section clearly indicates that 382 valid questionnaires were collected, corresponding to an effective response rate of 94.32%.

Please correct the percentage reported in the abstract or provide a clear explanation for the discrepancy.

2. The revised manuscript does not adequately address the previous comment.

The statement claiming that “the correlation between persistent rumination and anxiety or depression is 2.5 times higher in trainee nurses than in the general population” remains unsupported by the cited literature.

The newly introduced reference does not report (i) data on trainee nurses, (ii) comparisons with the general population, nor (iii) effect size ratios indicating a 2.3–2.5-fold difference.

As currently written, this claim constitutes an unsubstantiated quantitative assertion and raises concerns regarding scientific accuracy.

Please either provide a source that explicitly reports this population-specific effect size or revise the statement to accurately reflect the available evidence.

3. The reviewer’s previous concern has not been addressed.

The revised manuscript still attributes specific percentage differences (19 % decrease in clinical performance accuracy and 41 % lower professional identity score) to Zeng et al. (2024).

However, this study is cross-sectional, does not include a control group, and does not report outcomes related to clinical performance accuracy or professional identity, nor any percentage-based group comparisons.

Merely changing the reference number does not resolve the issue. Please cite the correct source that explicitly reports these figures or remove/revise the statement accordingly.

4. The authors’ revision does not adequately address the reviewer’s concern.

4.1 Unsupported causal and intervention-related claims

Although the cited reference has been removed, the statement itself remains unchanged. As currently written, the paragraph presents causal and intervention-related claims (e.g., mitigation of negative emotions, enhancement of job embeddedness through psychological interventions) without empirical support.

Removing the citation without revising or qualifying the claim does not resolve the issue. The authors should either provide appropriate evidence supporting these assertions or clearly reformulate the text as a hypothesis or conceptual perspective rather than an evidence-based conclusion.

4.2 Continued inappropriate use of the same reference elsewhere in the manuscript

In addition, it should be noted that the previously removed reference (Geisler et al., 2023) is reused elsewhere in the manuscript in a manner that remains inappropriate. While Geisler et al. (2023) examine affective work rumination in relation to job demands and exhaustion, the study does not assess cognitive resource competition, professional role cognition, or organizational commitment.

These constructs are neither measured nor empirically discussed in the cited article. Therefore, interpretations attributed to this reference should be revised to clearly distinguish theoretical reasoning from empirically supported findings, or an appropriate reference should be provided.

5. The reviewer’s previous comment has not been addressed.

Although the sample size calculation and inclusion/exclusion criteria are clearly described, the manuscript still does not specify the sampling method or recruitment strategy.

It remains unclear whether participants were recruited via convenience sampling, cluster sampling by institution, or another approach, and how the 12 participating institutions and trainee nurses were selected.

Please explicitly state the sampling strategy and recruitment procedure to allow readers to assess potential selection bias and external validity.

6. The revision only partially addresses the reviewer’s comment.

While the statement regarding informed consent has been appropriately removed and the ethics approval ID has been correctly relocated as requested, the “Conflict of Interest” section still includes funding information.

Please separate the funding statement under a dedicated “Funding” subheading and retain only the conflict of interest declaration under “Conflict of Interest,” in line with standard journal structure. Further revision is required to fully address this point.

Reviewer #3: (No Response)

Reviewer #4: This manuscript does not contribute anything new to nursing science from a professional, academic, clinical, or other perspective. However, it is well-written, well-structured, easy to understand, and methodologically reproducible, except for one important flaw: the authors do not provide or make available the study's main component. This component is the self-developed electronic questionnaire distributed through the WenJuanxing platform (survey ID: 23045560). Furthermore, they do not provide the two main scales (RRS and GJEI) that the authors claim are included in the questionnaire. They also fail to state whether this questionnaire has been previously validated, which would be important and would strengthen the study. Therefore, my review focuses on the contribution of the questionnaires to ensure reproducibility, as this would be the study's greatest contribution. The results obtained have already been widely published in many fields and areas.

**********

-->7. 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

Reviewer #2: No

Reviewer #3: No

Reviewer #4: Yes:Ana Fernández-Araque

**********

[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 interaction between rumination and job embeddedness among trainee nurses duringinternship: a multicenter longitudinal study

PONE-D-25-60904R2

Dear Authors,

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,

Ahmed Abdelwahab Ibrahim El-Sayed,

Academic Editor

PLOS One

Additional Editor Comments

Dear Authors,

Thank you for submitting the revised version of your manuscript and for your careful attention to the reviewers’ comments. The revisions have significantly improved the quality and clarity of the manuscript.

I am pleased to inform you that your manuscript has now been accepted for publication.

Congratulations, and we look forward to seeing your work published.

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

-->Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.-->

Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed

**********

-->2. 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 #2: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #2: I Don't Know

**********

-->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.-->

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

-->5. 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 #2: Yes

**********

-->6. 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 #2: The authors have addressed all the comments raised during the previous rounds of review. The revisions have helped correct the identified inconsistencies and improve the scientific accuracy of the manuscript. In particular, previously unsupported claims have been revised or reformulated more appropriately, and the overall presentation of the text has gained in clarity and coherence. Methodological aspects, especially those related to the description of the sampling strategy and the manuscript structure, have also been improved in line with the recommendations. In its current version, the manuscript no longer presents major issues that would compromise its scientific validity. Therefore, I consider that the manuscript can be accepted for publication in its revised form.

**********

-->7. 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 #2: Yes:Dr. Abdelmonim El Fadely

**********