PONE-D-22-29297Using web log analysis to evaluate healthcare students’ engagement behaviours with multimedia lectures on YouTube.PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Doherty,

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 Mar 12 2023 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,

Tauseef Ahmad

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. Please provide additional details regarding participant consent. In the ethics statement in the Methods and online submission information, please ensure that you have specified (1) whether consent was informed and (2) what type you obtained (for instance, written or verbal, and if verbal, how it was documented and witnessed). If your study included minors, state whether you obtained consent from parents or guardians. If the need for consent was waived by the ethics committee, please include this information.

If you are reporting a retrospective study of medical records or archived samples, please ensure that you have discussed whether all data were fully anonymized before you accessed them and/or whether the IRB or ethics committee waived the requirement for informed consent. If patients provided informed written consent to have data from their medical records used in research, please include this information.

3. Please include your full ethics statement in the ‘Methods’ section of your manuscript file. In your statement, please include the full name of the IRB or ethics committee who approved or waived your study, as well as whether or not you obtained informed written or verbal consent. If consent was waived for your study, please include this information in your statement as well.

4. We note that you have stated that you will provide repository information for your data at acceptance. Should your manuscript be accepted for publication, we will hold it until you provide the relevant accession numbers or DOIs necessary to access your data. If you wish to make changes to your Data Availability statement, please describe these changes in your cover letter and we will update your Data Availability statement to reflect the information you provide.

Additional Editor Comments:

Major revision required before further process

[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

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

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

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: The subject addressed in this investigation has considerable importance nowadays. However, at this moment, this draft seems like a minor continuation of an earlier article [1] by the same author. Thus, I cannot recommend the publication of this manuscript in its present form.

[1] Doherty, Cailbhe. "An investigation into the relationship between multimedia lecture design and learners’ engagement behaviours using web log analysis." Plos one 17.8 (2022): e0273007.

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0273007

Reviewer #2: This is an interesting study, supporting known multimedia principles to design better instructional videos for healthcare students. Also, it demanded work to prepare the YouTube videos. The major research contribution of this study is that it is more ecologically valid than the typical laboratory experiment. The study found stronger support for the segmenting, signaling, and redundancy principles, and somewhat smaller support for the image and embodiment principles. It is a timely topic, and the study is relevant for PLOS ONE. I have only minor suggestions to improve the study before accepting it for publication. My suggestions are detailed next.

MINOR

1 – Page 5 Lines 100¬-102 (P5 L100-102): Hypotheses 1 and 2 have a wrong “[ref]” that I think it should be changed to the proper reference numbers.

2 – In the Results section, be more consistent by using 3 decimal places in all reported ps. For example, P16 L283 and P17 L301 used only 2 decimal places for the p.

3 – Discussion, second paragraph could start with a reference in P17 L314. For example (see reference below), it could read: “…would be more engaging to students (see Castro-Alonso et al., 2021)”.

4 – P19 L358-359, when discussing the “cognitive respite”, a supporting reference could be used, so this could be: “…before they progress to the next video in a sequence (see the spacing effect in Chen et al., 2018), “

5 – P23 L453 is too harsh against CTML. I would revise “…the CTML is ill-suited to evaluating…” to “…the CTML may not be well suited to evaluating…”

6 – P23 L458 repeats “signalling, segmenting”.

7 – P23 L466 up to the end, is also too harsh against CTML, and it is speculative. I would delete all that last sentence, which begins with “While the CTML has provided a valuable…”.

8 – In the reference list, P26 and P27 repeat the same book, which is single-authored (not an edited book). So, references 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 34, 35 should be only one.

Castro-Alonso, J. C., de Koning, B. B., Fiorella, L., & Paas, F. (2021). Five strategies for optimizing instructional materials: Instructor- and learner-managed cognitive load. Educational Psychology Review, 33(4), 1379-1407. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-021-09606-9

Chen, O., Castro-Alonso, J. C., Paas, F., & Sweller, J. (2018). Extending cognitive load theory to incorporate working memory resource depletion: Evidence from the spacing effect. Educational Psychology Review, 30(2), 483-501. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-017-9426-2

Reviewer #3: This manuscript is about using transaction log analysis to evaluate the relationship between video lecture design (characteristics of these multimedia lectures, including implementation of certain principles from Mayer's Cognitive Theory of Multimedia Learning (CTML)) and healthcare students' engagement.

The manuscript is technically sound, with clear objectives, rigorously conducted, and the conclusions were supported by the presented data.

Kindly find the following recommendations:

1- add a brief paragraph about the CTML to the introduction section.

2- add a reference/ references for lines (62-66, page 3).

3- What does [ref] found in lines (100 and 102, page 5) stand for?

4- add the ORCID number of the corresponding author to the title page.

**********

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: No

Reviewer #3: Yes: Mohammad Issam Eddeen Abu Assab

**********

[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.

Using web log analysis to evaluate healthcare students’ engagement behaviours with multimedia lectures on YouTube.

PONE-D-22-29297R1

Dear Dr. Doherty,

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 for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

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,

Tauseef Ahmad

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Thank you for your sincere revisions according to the comments of the review

Reviewers' comments: