A systematic review and meta-analysis on achievement emotions, working memory and student-teacher relationship during second language learning in primary school

Eugenio Trotta; Cristina Semeraro; Matteo Gatti; Gabrielle Coppola; Nicola Mammarella; Paola Palladino

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0350119

Peer Review History

Original SubmissionNovember 6, 2025
6 Nov 2025 Author Response Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: rebuttal letter.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0350119.r001
24 Feb 2026 Decision Letter - Wei Lun Wong, Editor --> PONE-D-25-59942 A systematic review and metanalysis on achievement emotions, working memory and student-teacher relationship during second language learning in primary school. PLOS One Dear Dr. Trotta, 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 09 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, Wei Lun Wong 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. We note that the grant information you provided in the ‘Funding Information’ and ‘Financial Disclosure’ sections do not match. When you resubmit, please ensure that you provide the correct grant numbers for the awards you received for your study in the ‘Funding Information’ section. 3. Please note that funding information should not appear in any section or other areas of your manuscript. We will only publish funding information present in the Funding Statement section of the online submission form. Please remove any funding-related text from the manuscript. 4. If the reviewer comments include a recommendation to cite specific previously published works, please review and evaluate these publications to determine whether they are relevant and should be cited. There is no requirement to cite these works unless the editor has indicated otherwise. 5. 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. [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: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes --> ******** --> 2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: I Don't Know --> ****** --> 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 --> ****** --> 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 --> ****** --> 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: Overall, the manuscript is structured with a clear and easy-to-follow flow, from the background, objectives, PRISMA methods, bias assessment, narrative synthesis, and meta-analysis, to the discussion and limitations. The English is generally up to academic standards, but still needs refinement to be more consistent and unambiguous, as PLOS ONE does not perform post-acceptance language editing. Improvement Notes: Unify terminology, particularly using a single, consistent form for "meta-analysis" and avoiding variations such as "metanalysis." Correct several grammatical errors and unnatural phrasing, and break up long sentences for better readability. Ensure abbreviations (WM, AEs, STR, L1, L2) are defined once at the outset and used consistently. Clean up the formatting of lists and tables to avoid skipped numbering or layout artifacts. Exercise caution in claims, especially for STR, as quantitative evidence is limited and relies heavily on qualitative synthesis. Furthermore, the authors mention the use of AI to translate non-English or non-Italian articles. Translation procedures and verification should be explained concisely for transparency. Additionally, explain more explicitly how to detect and handle potential sample duplication in follow-up studies. Authors should also ensure a complete statement of data availability and supporting materials, including the search strategy and dataset extraction. In conclusion, the manuscript is clear enough, but requires light to moderate editing for terminology consistency, minor grammar corrections, and formatting refinement before publication. Reviewer #2: This systematic review and meta-analysis addresses a timely and important topic in educational psychology—the interplay between cognitive (working memory), emotional (achievement emotions), and socio-affective factors (student-teacher relationship) in second language learning during primary school. The manuscript makes a valuable contribution to the field by synthesizing evidence across 19 primary studies with over 5,300 participants. Strengths: The research addresses a significant gap by examining how multiple factors interact in L2 learning, moving beyond isolated variable approaches Methodological rigor is evident in the systematic review process and meta-analytic techniques Findings confirm expected associations (working memory positively correlates with L2 outcomes) while also revealing nuanced patterns (differential effects of anxiety versus enjoyment) The qualitative synthesis of student-teacher relationship research provides valuable insights about the protective function of emotional closeness, particularly for anxious learners The authors appropriately acknowledge limitations and suggest directions for future research Minor Revisions Suggested: Consider adding a brief discussion of implications for educational practice, particularly how teachers might leverage positive relationships to mitigate anxiety A PRISMA flowchart would enhance transparency of the study selection process The conclusion could be strengthened by explicitly connecting findings to the broader context of multilingual education policies Overall, this well-conducted review advances our understanding of the multidimensional nature of L2 learning in primary school settings and deserves 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 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: Sara Akram --> ******** --> [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. -->td {border: 1px solid #cccccc;}br {mso-data-placement:same-cell;} https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0350119.r002
Revision 1
17 Mar 2026 Author Response Point-by-point response letter PONE-D-25-59942: “A systematic review and metanalysis on achievement emotions, working memory and student-teacher relationship during second language learning in primary school”. We thank the Academic Editor and the Reviewers for the time dedicated to our manuscript and for the constructive comments provided. Below, we present the Journal Requirements and the Reviewers’ comments to the Authors in black. The Authors’ responses are in blue. All changes in the revised manuscript are tracked with the “track changes” option. 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 We confirm that our manuscript meets PLOS ONE’s style requirements. However, we cited Figures as “Figure” (e.g., Figure 1; Figure 2; etc.) instead of “Fig” as suggested by the manuscript body formatting guidelines. We modified it. 2. We note that the grant information you provided in the ‘Funding Information’ and ‘Financial Disclosure’ sections do not match. When you resubmit, please ensure that you provide the correct grant numbers for the awards you received for your study in the ‘Funding Information’ section. We apologize for the inconvenience. It was unintentional. As request, we are going to report as follow, when we resubmit: This work was supported by the “Learning English as a second language in primary school: an investigation of metacognitive and socio-emotional factors on children’s academic success and wellbeing - SELF_ENG”, Research Project of Relevant National Interest 2022 (PRIN), part of the National Recovery and Resilience Plan (PNRR) also known as “Italia Domani”, and component of the European Union’s Next Generation EU recovery program (Protocol n. P2022TT8LH). 3. Please note that funding information should not appear in any section or other areas of your manuscript. We will only publish funding information present in the Funding Statement section of the online submission form. Please remove any funding-related text from the manuscript. As request, we removed any funding-related text from the manuscript. Specifically, we removed the reference for the awards we received for our study (page 1, line 21) and the “Funding sources” section (page 23, line 599). 4. If the reviewer comments include a recommendation to cite specific previously published works, please review and evaluate these publications to determine whether they are relevant and should be cited. There is no requirement to cite these works unless the editor has indicated otherwise. No reviewer comments included a recommendation to cite specific previously published works. 5. 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. We confirm that our reference list is complete and correct. We did not identify cited papers that have been retracted. Comments to the Authors from Reviewer 1. Overall, the manuscript is structured with a clear and easy-to-follow flow, from the background, objectives, PRISMA methods, bias assessment, narrative synthesis, and meta-analysis, to the discussion and limitations. The English is generally up to academic standards but still needs refinement to be more consistent and unambiguous, as PLOS ONE does not perform post-acceptance language editing. We thank Reviewer 1 for appreciating our work. As suggested, we refined the English of our manuscript to be more consistent and unambiguous with academic standards. Improvement Notes: • Unify terminology, particularly using a single, consistent form for “meta-analysis” and avoiding variations such as “metanalysis.” We thank Reviewer 1 for the suggestion. We have consolidated the terminology with the term “meta-analysis.” • Correct several grammatical errors and unnatural phrasing and break up long sentences for better readability.[ET1.1] Thank you for the suggestion. We revised the manuscript to improve grammatical accuracy, reduce long sentences, and enhance readability. • Ensure abbreviations (WM, AEs, STR, L1, L2) are defined once at the outset and used consistently. We ensure that all abbreviations are defined upon first use and used consistently. • Clean up the formatting of lists and tables to avoid skipped numbering or layout artifacts.[ET2.1] Thank you for the suggestion. We revised the manuscript to ensure consistent layout, correct numbering, and the removal of any spacing or formatting artifacts. • Exercise caution in claims, especially for STR, as quantitative evidence is limited and relies heavily on qualitative synthesis. We thank Reviewer 1 for the observation. Indeed, the evidence regarding STR is limited to qualitative data. We revised the manuscript, adopting more cautious language in interpreting these results. • Furthermore, the authors mention the use of AI to translate non-English or non-Italian articles. Translation procedures and verification should be explained concisely for transparency. We thank Reviewer 1 for the comment. As suggested, we clarified in the manuscript the translation and review procedures for articles not available in English or Italian. Briefly, translations were obtained using two independent tools, and the resulting texts were subsequently checked by the research team for consistency with the original structure and key methodological information. • Additionally, explain more explicitly how to detect and handle potential sample duplication in follow-up studies. Authors should also ensure a complete statement of data availability and supporting materials, including the search strategy and dataset extraction. As suggested, we detailed how we handled papers with the same sample in "Description of the studies included" section. All data analysis and supporting materials, including the search strategy and dataset extraction, were previously shared within the Supporting Information. We forgot to mention it in the main manuscript. We thank the Reviewer 1 for the suggestion, giving us the opportunity to report it (see "Literature Search and search strategy" section). In conclusion, the manuscript is clear enough, but requires light to moderate editing for terminology consistency, minor grammar corrections, and formatting refinement before publication. We thank the Reviewer 1 for the time dedicated to our manuscript and for the constructive comments provided. Comments to the Authors from Reviewer 2. This systematic review and meta-analysis addresses a timely and important topic in educational psychology—the interplay between cognitive (working memory), emotional (achievement emotions), and socio-affective factors (student-teacher relationship) in second language learning during primary school. The manuscript makes a valuable contribution to the field by synthesizing evidence across 19 primary studies with over 5,300 participants. Strengths: • The research addresses a significant gap by examining how multiple factors interact in L2 learning, moving beyond isolated variable approaches • Methodological rigor is evident in the systematic review process and meta-analytic techniques • Findings confirm expected associations (working memory positively correlates with L2 outcomes) while also revealing nuanced patterns (differential effects of anxiety versus enjoyment) • The qualitative synthesis of student-teacher relationship research provides valuable insights about the protective function of emotional closeness, particularly for anxious learners • The authors appropriately acknowledge limitations and suggest directions for future research We thank Reviewer 2 for appreciating our work. Minor Revisions Suggested: • Consider adding a brief discussion of implications for educational practice, particularly how teachers might leverage positive relationships to mitigate anxiety We thank Reviewer 2 for his suggestion. We expanded the Discussion section by adding a practical example of how teachers can help reduce anxiety and support their students’ cognitive competences by promoting an emotionally safe and engaging environment. • A PRISMA flowchart would enhance transparency of the study selection process We agree with Reviewer 2. We previously reported our PRISMA flowchart of the literature search and screening process as Fig 1. Since the manuscript body formatting guidelines state “figures should be uploaded separately as individual files”, you can consult our PRISMA flowchart inside the file named “Figures”. • The conclusion could be strengthened by explicitly connecting findings to the broader context of multilingual education policies. We thank Reviewer 2 for the suggestion. As suggested, we integrated our findings into multilingual education policies. Overall, this well-conducted review advances our understanding of the multidimensional nature of L2 learning in primary school settings and deserves publication. We thank the Reviewer 2 for the time dedicated to our manuscript and for the constructive comments provided. Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: PONE-D-25-59942-Response letter.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0350119.r003
1 Apr 2026 Decision Letter - Wei Lun Wong, Editor -->PONE-D-25-59942R1-->-->A systematic review and meta-analysis on achievement emotions, working memory and student-teacher relationship during second language learning in primary school.-->-->PLOS One Dear Dr. Trotta, -->--> 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 May 16 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. As the corresponding author, your ORCID iD is verified in the submission system and will appear in the published article. PLOS supports the use of ORCID, and we encourage all coauthors to register for an ORCID iD and use it as well. Please encourage your coauthors to verify their ORCID iD within the submission system before final acceptance, as unverified ORCID iDs will not appear in the published article. Only the individual author can complete the verification step; PLOS staff cannot verify ORCID iDs on behalf of authors. We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript. Kind regards, Wei Lun Wong Academic Editor PLOS One Journal Requirements: If the reviewer comments include a recommendation to cite specific previously published works, please review and evaluate these publications to determine whether they are relevant and should be cited. There is no requirement to cite these works unless the editor has indicated otherwise. Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice. [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: 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: Partly 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.--> Reviewer #1: No 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 #1: No 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 #1: This manuscript presents a systematic review and meta-analysis examining the relationship between working memory, achievement emotions, and student–teacher relationships in second language (L2) learning among primary school students. The topic is relevant and timely, as understanding the interaction between cognitive, emotional, and contextual factors is important for improving language learning outcomes. Overall, the manuscript demonstrates potential to contribute to the literature in educational psychology and second language acquisition. The study applies an appropriate systematic review methodology and follows PRISMA guidelines for study selection. The use of meta-analytic techniques, including random-effects models, heterogeneity analysis, and publication bias assessment, indicates an effort to ensure methodological rigor. The integration of three important constructs (working memory, achievement emotions, and student–teacher relationships) provides a multidimensional perspective that is valuable for both researchers and practitioners. However, several issues should be addressed to improve the scientific quality and clarity of the manuscript. First, although the statistical analyses are generally appropriate, the number of studies examining student–teacher relationships appears limited, which may affect the strength and generalizability of the conclusions related to this variable. The authors are encouraged to discuss this limitation more explicitly and clarify how it may influence interpretation of the results. Second, the manuscript would benefit from clearer reporting regarding data availability. According to PLOS data policy, all data underlying the findings should be fully accessible either within the manuscript, supporting information files, or a public repository. The authors should provide explicit information about where the extracted dataset, effect size calculations, and analysis files can be accessed. Third, the manuscript requires careful language editing to improve clarity and readability. Several grammatical issues, repeated phrases, and awkward sentence structures are present throughout the text. Professional proofreading is recommended to ensure the manuscript meets the standard of academic English expected for publication. Additionally, the authors may consider improving the consistency of terminology and providing clearer explanations of the theoretical framework linking cognitive and emotional factors in L2 learning. Clarifying the rationale for inclusion criteria and providing more detailed justification for methodological choices would further strengthen the manuscript. Despite these concerns, the study addresses an important research topic and applies appropriate methodological procedures. With revisions focusing on language clarity, transparency of data availability, and clearer discussion of limitations, the manuscript has the potential to make a meaningful contribution to the field. No concerns related to research ethics, plagiarism, or duplicate publication were identified. Overall recommendation: minor revision. Reviewer #2: This is an excellent study. The methods are rigorous, the analyses are appropriate, and the conclusions are well supported. I have no further suggestions—congratulations on this valuable contribution. ****** -->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: Yes: sara Akram ******** [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. --> https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0350119.r004
Revision 2
20 Apr 2026 Author Response Point-by-point response letter PONE-D-25-59942R1: “A systematic review and meta-analysis on achievement emotions, working memory and student-teacher relationship during second language learning in primary school”. We thank the Academic Editor and the Reviewers for the time dedicated to our manuscript and for the constructive comments provided. Below, we present the Reviewers’ comments to the Authors in black. The Authors’ responses are in blue. All changes in the revised manuscript are tracked with the “track changes” option. Comments to the Authors from Reviewer 1. This manuscript presents a systematic review and meta-analysis examining the relationship between working memory, achievement emotions, and student–teacher relationships in second language (L2) learning among primary school students. The topic is relevant and timely, as understanding the interaction between cognitive, emotional, and contextual factors is important for improving language learning outcomes. Overall, the manuscript demonstrates potential to contribute to the literature in educational psychology and second language acquisition. The study applies an appropriate systematic review methodology and follows PRISMA guidelines for study selection. The use of meta-analytic techniques, including random-effects models, heterogeneity analysis, and publication bias assessment, indicates an effort to ensure methodological rigor. The integration of three important constructs (working memory, achievement emotions, and student–teacher relationships) provides a multidimensional perspective that is valuable for both researchers and practitioners. However, several issues should be addressed to improve the scientific quality and clarity of the manuscript. We thank Reviewer 1 for the time dedicated to our manuscript and for appreciating our work. First, although the statistical analyses are generally appropriate, the number of studies examining student–teacher relationships appears limited, which may affect the strength and generalizability of the conclusions related to this variable. The authors are encouraged to discuss this limitation more explicitly and clarify how it may influence interpretation of the results. We thank Reviewer 1 for the comment. We agree that the limited number of studies investigating the student–teacher relationship (STR) represents a constraint for the strength and generalizability of the conclusions. As reported in the first limit (page 29, row 548), only four studies addressed STR, and only two provided quantitative data suitable for meta-analysis. For this reason, we treated the evidence on STR exclusively at a qualitative level and explicitly framed these findings as exploratory. To address this concern, we strengthened the discussion of this limitation in the manuscript by clarifying that: ● the small number of studies prevents robust generalization of the STR findings; ● conclusions regarding STR should be interpreted with caution; ● further research is needed to provide more solid and generalizable evidence on this variable. Second, the manuscript would benefit from clearer reporting regarding data availability. According to PLOS data policy, all data underlying the findings should be fully accessible either within the manuscript, supporting information files, or a public repository. The authors should provide explicit information about where the extracted dataset, effect size calculations, and analysis files can be accessed. We totally agree with Reviewer 1 on the importance of transparency and data availability. As already indicated in the manuscript (see “Literature search and search strategy”, line 195), all data underlying the findings are fully accessible in the Supporting Information files. Specifically: ● The complete search strategy (including research question development, use of synonyms, and Boolean operators across all databases) is provided in S1 File “Additional information for Method section”; ● All effect size calculations, as well as sensitivity analyses, are reported in S2 File “Additional information on quantitative analyses”. Furthermore, in line with PLOS data-sharing policies, the study was preregistered on a public repository (Open Science Framework). For the purposes of double-blind peer review, an anonymous access link is currently provided in the manuscript; this will be replaced with a fully accessible public link upon publication. Given the extent and technical detail of the search strategy and quantitative analyses, these materials are not included in full within the main manuscript but are entirely available in the supplementary files to ensure transparency and reproducibility. To further improve clarity, we strengthened the description of data availability in the manuscript. Third, the manuscript requires careful language editing to improve clarity and readability. Several grammatical issues, repeated phrases, and awkward sentence structures are present throughout the text. Professional proofreading is recommended to ensure the manuscript meets the standard of academic English expected for publication. We thank Reviewer 1 for the recommendation. We declare that we used ChatGPT (OpenAI, San Francisco, CA, USA) to improve the English language and the writing quality. After using it, we reviewed and edited the content as needed and took full responsibility for the content of the publication. Additionally, the authors may consider improving the consistency of terminology and providing clearer explanations of the theoretical framework linking cognitive and emotional factors in L2 learning. Clarifying the rationale for inclusion criteria and providing more detailed justification for methodological choices would further strengthen the manuscript. We improved clarity, refined sentence structure, ensured terminological consistency, and strengthened the theoretical framework by explicitly highlighting the interaction between cognitive, emotional, and relational factors throughout the Introduction. Despite these concerns, the study addresses an important research topic and applies appropriate methodological procedures. With revisions focusing on language clarity, transparency of data availability, and clearer discussion of limitations, the manuscript has the potential to make a meaningful contribution to the field. No concerns related to research ethics, plagiarism, or duplicate publication were identified. Overall recommendation: minor revision. We thank Reviewer 1 for the time dedicated to our manuscript and for appreciating our work. Comments to the Authors from Reviewer 2. This is an excellent study. The methods are rigorous, the analyses are appropriate, and the conclusions are well supported. I have no further suggestions—congratulations on this valuable contribution. We thank Reviewer 2 for the time dedicated to our manuscript and for appreciating our work. Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: PONE-D-25-59942R1- 2ndResponse letter.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0350119.r005
11 May 2026 Decision Letter - Muhammad Aslam, Editor A systematic review and meta-analysis on achievement emotions, working memory and student-teacher relationship during second language learning in primary school. PONE-D-25-59942R2 Dear Dr. Trotta, 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, Muhammad Zammad Aslam, Ph.D. Academic Editor PLOS One Additional Editor Comments (optional): 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 thoroughly addressed all previous concerns. The manuscript is significantly improved in clarity, methodology, and reporting. I am pleased to recommend acceptance for publication. Good luck with the next steps. ****** -->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: Sara Akram ******** https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0350119.r006
Formally Accepted
Acceptance Letter - Muhammad Aslam, Editor PONE-D-25-59942R2 PLOS One Dear Dr. Trotta, 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. Muhammad Zammad Aslam Academic Editor PLOS One https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0350119.r007

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 .