-->PONE-D-25-35558-->-->Modeling the Effect of Psychological Capital on Nurses' Job Performance with the Moderating Role of Intolerance of Uncertainty-->-->PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Hossein Ebrahimi,

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  Sep 20 2025 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 rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.
• A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.
• An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Abdelaziz Hendy, 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. 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. Thank you for stating the following financial disclosure:

“Iran University of Medical Sciences for the financial support (Number: 1401-2-25-23476)”

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.

4. Thank you for stating the following in the Acknowledgments Section of your manuscript:

“Authors would like to thank Iran University of Medical Sciences for the financial support (Number: 1401-2-25-23476). Also, thanks for the help of participants of this study. “

We note that you have provided funding information that is currently declared in your Funding Statement. However, funding information should not appear in the Acknowledgments 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 and let us know how you would like to update your Funding Statement. Currently, your Funding Statement reads as follows:

“Iran University of Medical Sciences for the financial support (Number: 1401-2-25-23476)”

Please include your amended statements within your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf.

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:

You must perform concise grammar checks and editing, and apply all necessary reviewer modifications

Reviewer 1:

We sincerely thank the authors for their valuable efforts in preparing this manuscript, and we also extend our gratitude to the editor for the opportunity to review it. In order to help improve the overall quality of the work, we offer the following comments and suggestions.

Abstract

Comment 1: The abstract is generally well-structured but could benefit from greater specificity regarding the methodology (e.g., SEM phases like measurement vs. structural models).

Comment 2: Add explicit mention of theoretical contribution (e.g., "extends previous models of psychological capital…").

Comment 3: Please ensure that writing and spelling conventions are followed correctly in the abstract; for example, use "abstract" instead of "abstracta."

Introduction

Comment 4: The introduction offers a solid conceptual background, but the research gap should be more clearly articulated. Why is the moderating role of intolerance of uncertainty important in this context?

Comment 5: Consider reducing repetition in defining psychological capital and its components. Streamlining will enhance flow.

Comment 6: The theoretical framework and hypothesis development are currently interwoven within the Introduction. For clarity and better organization, it is recommended to present the theoretical framework and the development of hypotheses in two separate sub-sections. This will help readers follow the logical flow of concepts and understand how the research model and hypotheses are derived from existing literature.

Materials and Methods

Comment 7: Good detail on instruments. However, the rationale for selecting the sample size should be better justified beyond stating SEM needs (include power analysis if possible).

Comment 8: Clarify ethical procedures: you mention verbal consent in the text, but the abstract refers to written consent. This inconsistency needs resolution.

Comment 9: Detail on missing data handling or response rate is missing—please add.

Comment 10: Expand briefly on validity evidence of the questionnaires in the local (Iranian) context.

Results

Comment 11: Tables are useful, but figure captions should be more informative (e.g., "Structural Model Output using Smart-PLS").

Comment 12: The results narrative is descriptive but could benefit from more interpretive statements highlighting the implications of each statistical result.

Comment 13: Provide effect size interpretations alongside statistical significance where possible (e.g., is β = .378 considered strong?).

Comment 14: Consider restructuring Table 2 to improve readability—current formatting is difficult to interpret at a glance.

Discussion

Comment 15: The discussion effectively interprets results, but lacks critical engagement with conflicting studies or limitations of findings.

Comment 16: Theoretical contribution should be more explicitly stated—what does this add to literature beyond empirical confirmation?

Comment 17: Some paragraphs (e.g., on optimism) could be shortened or merged for better cohesion.

Comment 18: No policy or organizational recommendations are clearly formulated—these should be added given the applied nature of the study.

Conclusion

Comment 19: The conclusion is mostly a summary. It should more clearly reflect implications for hospital management, staff training, or policy.

Comment 20: No explicit limitations section is provided. Please add a paragraph discussing at least methodological limitations (e.g., cross-sectional design, self-report bias).

Comment 21: Suggestions for future research are absent. Include 1–2 directions (e.g., longitudinal studies, broader geographic samples).

Grammar and Writing Style

Comment 22: General English is clear but sometimes wordy or redundant (e.g., “refers to” used too frequently).

Comment 23: Inconsistent verb tenses—ensure uniform use of past tense in methods and results.

Comment 24: Some sentences are overly long (20+ words). Consider splitting for clarity and reader ease.

Comment 25: There are minor issues in article use and punctuation (e.g., “the psychological capital” vs. “psychological capital”).

Missing Sections

Comment 26: There is no separate limitations section—please add.

Comment 27: There are no clear policy implications or practical recommendations, despite this being an applied study. Add concrete suggestions (e.g., training modules, managerial practices).

Comment 28: No future research suggestions are included—these are essential for a scientific article.

Reviewer 2:

1. In the introduction section, accurate statistics on three main variables in the world and Iran should be mentioned.

2. In the introduction section, The study gap should be explained.

3. The introduction should mention why modeling was done and what is its importance in nursing?

4. The validity and reliability of the instruments inside and outside Iran, especially the construct validity, should be mentioned in the materials and methods section.

5. The sampling method should be explained in the methodology section.

6. It is essential to obtain written consent from participants and explain the purpose of the study to them.

7. Articles that are consistent with and inconsistent with the present study should be used in the discussion.

8. At the end of the discussion, limitations of the study and suggestions for nursing should be mentioned.

9. The references are fully updated and each them is written in full according to the journal format

1. In the introduction section, accurate statistics on three main variables in the world and Iran should be mentioned. 2. In the introduction section, The study gap should be explained. 3. The introduction should mention why modeling was done and what is its importance in nursing? 4. The validity and reliability of the instruments inside and outside Iran, especially the construct validity, should be mentioned in the materials and methods section. 5. The sampling method should be explained in the methodology section. 6. It is essential to obtain written consent from participants and explain the purpose of the study to them. 7. Articles that are consistent with and inconsistent with the present study should be used in the discussion. 8. At the end of the discussion, limitations of the study and suggestions for nursing should be mentioned. 9. The references are fully updated and each them is written in full according to the journal format

1. In the introduction section, accurate statistics on three main variables in the world and Iran should be mentioned.

2. In the introduction section, The study gap should be explained.

3. The introduction should mention why modeling was done and what is its importance in nursing?

4. The validity and reliability of the instruments inside and outside Iran, especially the construct validity, should be mentioned in the materials and methods section.

5. The sampling method should be explained in the methodology section.

6. It is essential to obtain written consent from participants and explain the purpose of the study to them.

7. Articles that are consistent with and inconsistent with the present study should be used in the discussion.

8. At the end of the discussion, limitations of the study and suggestions for nursing should be mentioned.

9. The references are fully updated and each them is written in full according to the journal format

[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: No

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.-->

Reviewer #1: No

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: We sincerely thank the authors for their valuable efforts in preparing this manuscript, and we also extend our gratitude to the editor for the opportunity to review it. In order to help improve the overall quality of the work, we offer the following comments and suggestions.

Abstract

Comment 1: The abstract is generally well-structured but could benefit from greater specificity regarding the methodology (e.g., SEM phases like measurement vs. structural models).

Comment 2: Add explicit mention of theoretical contribution (e.g., "extends previous models of psychological capital…").

Comment 3: Please ensure that writing and spelling conventions are followed correctly in the abstract; for example, use "abstract" instead of "abstracta."

Introduction

Comment 4: The introduction offers a solid conceptual background, but the research gap should be more clearly articulated. Why is the moderating role of intolerance of uncertainty important in this context?

Comment 5: Consider reducing repetition in defining psychological capital and its components. Streamlining will enhance flow.

Comment 6: The theoretical framework and hypothesis development are currently interwoven within the Introduction. For clarity and better organization, it is recommended to present the theoretical framework and the development of hypotheses in two separate sub-sections. This will help readers follow the logical flow of concepts and understand how the research model and hypotheses are derived from existing literature.

Materials and Methods

Comment 7: Good detail on instruments. However, the rationale for selecting the sample size should be better justified beyond stating SEM needs (include power analysis if possible).

Comment 8: Clarify ethical procedures: you mention verbal consent in the text, but the abstract refers to written consent. This inconsistency needs resolution.

Comment 9: Detail on missing data handling or response rate is missing—please add.

Comment 10: Expand briefly on validity evidence of the questionnaires in the local (Iranian) context.

Results

Comment 11: Tables are useful, but figure captions should be more informative (e.g., "Structural Model Output using Smart-PLS").

Comment 12: The results narrative is descriptive but could benefit from more interpretive statements highlighting the implications of each statistical result.

Comment 13: Provide effect size interpretations alongside statistical significance where possible (e.g., is β = .378 considered strong?).

Comment 14: Consider restructuring Table 2 to improve readability—current formatting is difficult to interpret at a glance.

Discussion

Comment 15: The discussion effectively interprets results, but lacks critical engagement with conflicting studies or limitations of findings.

Comment 16: Theoretical contribution should be more explicitly stated—what does this add to literature beyond empirical confirmation?

Comment 17: Some paragraphs (e.g., on optimism) could be shortened or merged for better cohesion.

Comment 18: No policy or organizational recommendations are clearly formulated—these should be added given the applied nature of the study.

Conclusion

Comment 19: The conclusion is mostly a summary. It should more clearly reflect implications for hospital management, staff training, or policy.

Comment 20: No explicit limitations section is provided. Please add a paragraph discussing at least methodological limitations (e.g., cross-sectional design, self-report bias).

Comment 21: Suggestions for future research are absent. Include 1–2 directions (e.g., longitudinal studies, broader geographic samples).

Grammar and Writing Style

Comment 22: General English is clear but sometimes wordy or redundant (e.g., “refers to” used too frequently).

Comment 23: Inconsistent verb tenses—ensure uniform use of past tense in methods and results.

Comment 24: Some sentences are overly long (20+ words). Consider splitting for clarity and reader ease.

Comment 25: There are minor issues in article use and punctuation (e.g., “the psychological capital” vs. “psychological capital”).

Missing Sections

Comment 26: There is no separate limitations section—please add.

Comment 27: There are no clear policy implications or practical recommendations, despite this being an applied study. Add concrete suggestions (e.g., training modules, managerial practices).

Comment 28: No future research suggestions are included—these are essential for a scientific article.

Reviewer #2: 1. In the introduction section, accurate statistics on three main variables in the world and Iran should be mentioned.

2. In the introduction section, The study gap should be explained.

3. The introduction should mention why modeling was done and what is its importance in nursing?

4. The validity and reliability of the instruments inside and outside Iran, especially the construct validity, should be mentioned in the materials and methods section.

5. The sampling method should be explained in the methodology section.

6. It is essential to obtain written consent from participants and explain the purpose of the study to them.

7. Articles that are consistent with and inconsistent with the present study should be used in the discussion.

8. At the end of the discussion, limitations of the study and suggestions for nursing should be mentioned.

9. The references are fully updated and each them is written in full according to the journal format

**********

-->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: 1. In the introduction section, accurate statistics on three main variables in the world and Iran should be mentioned.

2. In the introduction section, The study gap should be explained.

3. The introduction should mention why modeling was done and what is its importance in nursing?

4. The validity and reliability of the instruments inside and outside Iran, especially the construct validity, should be mentioned in the materials and methods section.

5. The sampling method should be explained in the methodology section.

6. It is essential to obtain written consent from participants and explain the purpose of the study to them.

7. Articles that are consistent with and inconsistent with the present study should be used in the discussion.

8. At the end of the discussion, limitations of the study and suggestions for nursing should be mentioned.

9. The references are fully updated and each them is written in full according to the journal format

**********

[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.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

-->PONE-D-25-35558R1-->-->Modeling the Effect of Psychological Capital on Nurses' Job Performance with the Moderating Role of Intolerance of Uncertainty-->-->PLOS One

Dear Dr. Ebrahimi,

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 02 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,

Jordan Llego, PhD ELM, D. Hon. Ex., PhDN, RN

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.

Additional Editor Comments:

Alongside the reviewer’s helpful feedback, there are a few additional editorial points to consider to meet PLOS ONE’s standards. Your use of structural equation modeling is appropriate, but the Methods section would be even clearer if you stated up front whether your SEM approach was strictly confirmatory or partly exploratory, especially since you included a moderating path. Clarifying this will help readers understand the scope of your findings and avoid any confusion about model fit and theoretical confirmation.

Please also double-check the ethics documentation for consistency. While your manuscript now correctly notes that verbal informed consent was obtained, the submission system still mentions written consent. Make sure this is updated everywhere—including in your submission metadata—to avoid any last-minute ethical compliance concerns. Also, confirm that your ethics committee’s approval explicitly covers the waiver of written consent, and that this is reflected throughout your materials.

For transparency, it would be helpful to briefly mention how you addressed or considered common method bias, since all your data came from self-report instruments at one time point. Even if you didn’t run a formal statistical test, a short acknowledgment—such as describing steps like ensuring anonymity or separating scales—will strengthen both your Methods and Limitations sections.

In the Results and Discussion, your explanations of effect sizes and moderation are clear. However, some passages use language that could be read as causal or prescriptive. Since PLOS ONE values methodological neutrality, please make sure all interpretations are framed as associative and conditional relationships—not causal—especially when talking about interventions or policy implications.

Finally, your Discussion section is thorough, but its length may make it harder for readers to see your main message. I suggest sharpening the focus by clearly restating how your study moves the field forward—especially by showing how intolerance of uncertainty acts as a boundary condition in PsyCap–performance research. Adding a concise summary paragraph near the end of the Discussion will help highlight your study’s unique value.

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

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: (No Response)

**********

-->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: (No Response)

**********

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

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

**********

-->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 Response)

**********

-->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 Response)

**********

-->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: Thank you very much, Professor, for the opportunity to review this manuscript.

My comments for revision are as follows:

General Comments

The manuscript is well-structured and scientifically solid; however, some sections need tightening for clarity, consistency, and stronger alignment with PLOS ONE’s reporting standards.

Please ensure consistent terminology for constructs (e.g., “psychological capital” vs. “PsyCap”) and for consent type (“verbal” vs. “written”) across all sections.

Abstract

1. The first sentence could explicitly state the design (e.g., “a cross-sectional analytical study”) for methodological clarity.

2. Consider shortening the last two sentences to emphasize implications more succinctly.

3. Ensure that all abbreviations (e.g., SEM, IU) are defined at first mention.

Introduction

1. The introduction is comprehensive, but the flow can be improved by reducing background repetition on PsyCap.

2. The research gap could be highlighted earlier (around line 80–85) to strengthen reader engagement.

3. Figure 1 should be referenced with a more explicit description in text (e.g., “Figure 1 illustrates the proposed moderating framework…”).

Methods

1. The section is detailed and clear. However, the ethics paragraph still inconsistently refers to written consent in the ethics statement while “verbal consent” is noted in the main text. This should be reconciled to match ethics committee approval.

2. The sampling procedure description is excellent, but please move some technical detail (SPSS commands, oversampling explanation) to a supplementary appendix for brevity.

3. Clarify whether any control variables (e.g., gender, age, experience) were tested in the SEM model.

4. Add brief justification for using the 27-item IUS rather than the IUS-12 short form, since the latter is more common in nursing research.

Results

1. Figures and tables are informative but need uniform style (same decimal precision and table notes).

2. Provide sample size (N=212) in every table caption.

3. The interpretation sentences following Tables 2 and 4 could more clearly relate numeric values to the study hypotheses (e.g., “Thus, H1 was supported, while H2 was not…”).

4. Report R² and f² values for main paths to support the discussion on effect size and model strength.

Discussion

1. The discussion is strong but should better distinguish between empirical findings and interpretive commentary—currently they blend in several paragraphs.

2. When citing conflicting evidence, specify study contexts (e.g., countries, healthcare settings) to enrich the comparative analysis.

3. Add a short paragraph linking findings to existing nursing performance theories or models (e.g., Job Demands–Resources framework).

4. The “Practical Implications” subsection is excellent but could be condensed to highlight 3–4 priority recommendations.

Conclusion

1. Rephrase to avoid restating numerical findings; focus on implications for practice, management, and policy.

2. The final sentence could more directly state the contribution: “This study provides an empirically validated model explaining how intolerance of uncertainty moderates the effect of psychological capital on nurses’ performance.”

Limitations and Future Research

1. Well-written, but should add a note about the cultural context (Iranian hospitals) as a possible boundary to generalization.

2. Suggest specifying how longitudinal or intervention designs might operationalize PsyCap or IU changes.

References

1. Check consistency of et al. usage (journal requires up to 6 authors before “et al.”).

2. Ensure uniform citation style (e.g., spacing before volume and issue numbers).

3. Verify the accuracy of Iranian journal references (some may lack DOIs).

Language and Style

1. The manuscript is generally fluent but occasionally verbose; shorten sentences over 25 words.

2. Ensure consistent tense use—Methods and Results in past tense; Introduction and Discussion in present tense where applicable.

3. Avoid redundancy in transitions (e.g., remove phrases like “it should be noted that…”).

Best Regards

**********

-->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

**********

[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.

<div>PONE-D-25-35558R2-->-->Modeling the Effect of Psychological Capital on Nurses' Job Performance with the Moderating Role of Intolerance of Uncertainty-->-->PLOS One

Dear Dr. Ebrahimi,

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 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.

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,

Jordan Llego, PhD ELM, D. Hon. Ex., PhDN, RN

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.

Additional Editor Comments:

Thank you for submitting the revised version of the manuscript. The revised paper demonstrates substantial improvement, reflecting significant effort to address the concerns raised during the previous review. The manuscript is now better organized, with strengthened analytical reporting, and key sections such as the discussion, conclusion, and limitations are more focused and aligned with the study’s objectives. Notably, the clarification of the study design, the more explicit reporting of structural equation modeling results, and the clearer articulation of the study’s theoretical and practical relevance are commendable.

However, following careful editorial assessment, the manuscript is not yet ready for acceptance in its current form. Although the remaining issues do not warrant rejection, they are sufficiently significant to require further revision before a final decision can be made. Most notably, there is an inconsistency in the ethics and consent documentation. The manuscript reports verbal informed consent, while other submission materials indicate written consent. This inconsistency must be corrected thoroughly and consistently across the manuscript, ethics statement, and all submission metadata. Additionally, the ethics approval should clearly support the form of consent that was actually obtained, including any waiver of written consent if applicable.

There are also unresolved concerns regarding the reporting and justification of the intolerance of uncertainty instrument. The manuscript utilizes the 27-item measure, yet some justification relies on discussion of the shorter IUS-12, which may cause confusion. The rationale, validation support, and interpretation should consistently correspond to the instrument actually administered. The reference list must also be reviewed carefully, as inclusion of any retracted source is unacceptable and such citations must be removed or replaced with valid references.

Although the discussion section has improved, some passages still contain wording that may be interpreted as causal or overly prescriptive. As the study is cross-sectional and based on self-report data collected at a single time point, interpretations must remain associative rather than causal throughout the manuscript. Statements suggesting that one construct improves, determines, or directly leads to another should be revised. Furthermore, the manuscript would benefit from a clearer statement regarding common method bias. Even if no formal statistical test was conducted, any procedural steps taken to reduce this concern should be briefly explained, and the issue should be acknowledged transparently in the limitations.

The manuscript is therefore invited for further revision. In preparing the next version, all remaining concerns should be addressed carefully, accurately, and consistently throughout the full manuscript and submission materials. The authors are encouraged to review the revised paper line by line to ensure that no conflicting statements remain and that all reporting is fully aligned with journal standards. A clear and detailed point-by-point response should also be provided, explaining exactly how each concern has been addressed.

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

[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.

Modeling the Effect of Psychological Capital on Nurses' Job Performance with the Moderating Role of Intolerance of Uncertainty

PONE-D-25-35558R3

Dear Dr. Ebrahimi,

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,

Jordan Llego, PhD ELM, D. Hon. Ex., PhDN, RN

Academic Editor

PLOS One

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Thank you for submitting the revised manuscript. The authors have addressed the major concerns from the previous editorial assessment, including ethical reporting, informed consent documentation, clarification of the intolerance of uncertainty instrument, reduction of causal language, and acknowledgment of common method bias. The manuscript has improved significantly and is now suitable for acceptance.

Before production, the manuscript should receive minor editorial and proofreading corrections to address typographical, formatting, and language issues. This includes correcting spelling errors in tables, ensuring consistent terminology, and using terms like “effect” cautiously given the cross-sectional design. These are editorial matters and do not require further scientific revision.

Minor points to flag for production/proofreading:

1. Change “Tell” to “Tel.” in the corresponding author information.

2. Correct table errors such as “Cofficent” to “Coefficient” and “T-Statictic” to “T-statistic.”

3. Replace “Causal relations” in Table 4 with “Hypothesized relationships” or “Structural paths.”

4. Consider changing the title wording from “Effect” to “Association” or “Relationship” to better match the cross-sectional design.

5. Remove or soften remaining causal/prescriptive wording such as “effect,” “enhance,” “improving,” or “influence” where needed.

6. Review reference formatting and minor language issues before publication.

Reviewers' comments: