Has the educational use of digital technologies changed after the pandemic? A longitudinal study

Juan-Ignacio Pozo; Beatriz Cabellos; María del Puy Pérez Echeverría

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0311695

Peer Review History

Original SubmissionApril 24, 2024
22 Aug 2024 Decision Letter - Mohammed Saqr, Editor PONE-D-24-15719Has the educational use of digital technologies changed after the pandemic? A longitudinal StudyPLOS ONE Dear Dr. Cabellos, 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. Reviewers are generally positive about your article and asked for some changes. Beside these,I urge you to take the following into consideration.Elaborate more on the statistical tests conducted, the data suitability and evaluation of themAlso, it is important to discuss the limitation of these tests, k-means and what it means for your findings.More importantly, be sure to align your findings and conclusions with your results without offering any conclusions not supported by your data Please submit your revised manuscript by Oct 06 2024 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, Mohammed Saqr, Ph.D Academic Editor PLOS ONE Journal requirements: When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements. 1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf 2. Thank you for stating the following financial disclosure: “The contribution of the fist author in this paper was supported by a grant from the Spanish Ministry of Science & Innovation (PID2020-114177RB-I00).” Please state what role the funders took in the study. If the funders had no role, please state: "The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript." If this statement is not correct you must amend it as needed. Please include this amended Role of Funder statement in your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf. 3. Thank you for stating the following in the Acknowledgments Section of your manuscript: “The contribution of the fist author in this paper was supported by a grant from the Spanish Ministry of Science & Innovation (PID2020-114177RB-I00). We would like to appreciate Krystyna Sleziak for her support in preparing the English version of the paper.” 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: “The contribution of the fist author in this paper was supported by a grant from the Spanish Ministry of Science & Innovation (PID2020-114177RB-I00).” Please include your amended statements within your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf. 4. In this instance it seems there may be acceptable restrictions in place that prevent the public sharing of your minimal data. However, in line with our goal of ensuring long-term data availability to all interested researchers, PLOS’ Data Policy states that authors cannot be the sole named individuals responsible for ensuring data access (http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-acceptable-data-sharing-methods). Data requests to a non-author institutional point of contact, such as a data access or ethics committee, helps guarantee long term stability and availability of data. Providing interested researchers with a durable point of contact ensures data will be accessible even if an author changes email addresses, institutions, or becomes unavailable to answer requests. Before we proceed with your manuscript, please also provide non-author contact information (phone/email/hyperlink) for a data access committee, ethics committee, or other institutional body to which data requests may be sent. If no institutional body is available to respond to requests for your minimal data, please consider if there any institutional representatives who did not collaborate in the study, and are not listed as authors on the manuscript, who would be able to hold the data and respond to external requests for data access? If so, please provide their contact information (i.e., email address). Please also provide details on how you will ensure persistent or long-term data storage and availability. 5. Please include a separate caption for each figure in your manuscript. 6. 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: 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: No ****** 4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English? PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 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 paper presented is original in its content and provides relevant data for the field of educational technology. The theoretical framework of justification of the proposal as well as the methodology used is relevant and the results are significant. Can be published Reviewer #2: I congratulate the authors for the clarity of the text and the precision in the presentation of the objectives, the methodological design and the results. On the other hand, the conclusions are coherent with the results obtained and the discussion is correct, although it could be enriched with some references linked to this topic that have been previously published in PlosOne on teaching practices with ICT just before the confinement and closure of schools. The topic is of great interest for Educational Technology research and the approach taken is very timely to increase knowledge about the evolution of digital education after the pandemic. Although the PLOS Data policy requires authors to make available all data supporting the findings described in their manuscript without restriction and the Data Availability Statement in the PDF file of the manuscript indicates that ‘Yes - all data are fully available without restriction’, we have not found how to access these data. Access to the full questionnaire is also missing. Knowledge of the instrument is very important for a better understanding of the results and is a good practice in relation to open knowledge. With regard to the questionnaire used in the research, information on its reliability is provided, but no information on the validity of the instrument is included. The two main limitations of the study are correctly identified. On the one hand, the considerable loss of sample in the replication of the questionnaire after its use during the pandemic. On the other hand, the need for triangulation of data through qualitative methodologies that allow us to understand the phenomenon in greater depth. There are many studies based on the teacher's subjective view of his or her own activity that should be completed with other data collected in the context and with other views of significant agents (students, families). In conclusion, this is a relevant study, well designed and developed, with interesting results and well-constructed conclusions based on the evidence obtained. It is recommended that the discussion be improved with some references to teaching practices with ICT pre-COVID and information on the validity of the instrument. Finally, consistent with the Data Availability Statement, provide access to the survey instrument and data. ****** 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 ******** [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. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0311695.r001
Revision 1
6 Sep 2024 Author Response Dear Editor, We would like to express our sincere gratitude to you and the reviewers for your valuable feedback on our manuscript titled “Has the Educational Use of Digital Technologies Changed After the Pandemic? A Longitudinal Study.” Below, we have outlined the suggestions provided by both you and the reviewers: Editor’s Suggestions: 1. Method: o It was suggested to delve deeper into the statistical tests performed, the appropriateness of the data, and its evaluation. Thank you very much for your suggestion. In section 2.3, "Analysis of the results," we have tried to delve deeper into the statistical tests performed as indicated. 2. Discussion: o The editor advised discussing the limitations of the K-means analysis and what these limitations imply for the findings. Thank you very much for the recommendation. In section 4.1, "Limitations of the study," we have addressed the limitations of the K-means analysis. o It was also recommended to ensure that the findings and conclusions are aligned with the results, without offering any conclusions not supported by the data. We greatly appreciate your suggestion. We have included a few adjustments on page 22 of the manuscript to improve readability. 3. Other Recommendations: o We were asked to clarify the role of the funders in the study, and if they had no role, to explicitly state that in the cover letter. As the editor recommended, we have added the following statement: "The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript." o We were informed that funding information should appear in the Cover Letter and not in other sections of the manuscript. We have removed the funding information from the manuscript and included it in the cover letter. o The editor suggested providing a non-author contact for data access requests to ensure long-term availability of the data. We have added an institutional link where both the questionnaire used and the dataset can be found, which will make it easier for readers to replicate the data: https://doi.org/10.21950/VYBSEP o The inclusion of separate legends for each figure in the manuscript was requested. We have included separate legends for each figure as recommended. o We were also advised to review the references, and any changes made should be noted in the letter to the editors and reviewers. We have added the following references to the manuscript, but no changes have been made to the previous references: • Valverde-Berrocoso J, Fernández-Sánchez MR, Revuelta Dominguez FI, Sosa-Díaz MJ. The educational integration of digital technologies pre-Covid-19: Lessons for teacher education. PLoS One. 2021;16(8). https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0256283 • Peng R, Abdul Razak R, Halili SH. Factors influencing in-service teachers’ technology integration model: Innovative strategies for educational technology. PLoS One. 2023;18(8). https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0286112 • Vasuthevan K, Vaithilingam S, Ng JWJ. Academics’ continuance intention to use learning technologies during COVID-19 and beyond. PLoS One. 2024;19(1). https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0295746 • Ahmed, M, Seraj, R, Islam, SMS. The k-means algorithm: A comprehensive survey and performance evaluation. Electronics.2020; 9(8): 1-12. https://doi.org/10.3390/electronics9081295 Reviewer 1’s Suggestions: Reviewer 1 expressed full satisfaction with the manuscript. We sincerely thank Reviewer 1 for their positive feedback and full satisfaction with our work. We are pleased that the manuscript meets the high standards expected, and we appreciate their recognition of the effort and rigor that went into this research. Reviewer 2’s Suggestions: 1. Conclusions: o The reviewer suggested that while the conclusions are consistent with the results, the discussion could be enriched by including references related to similar studies, particularly those published in PLOS ONE concerning teaching practices with ICT before the lockdown. As indicated to the editor, we have added a series of references published in PLOS ONE that help justify the discussion of the results obtained. 2. Ethics: o The reviewer noted that although the Data Availability Statement indicated that all data were fully accessible, there was no clear method to access these data, including the complete questionnaire. The reviewer emphasized the importance of making the full instrument available for better understanding of the results. We have added an institutional link where both the questionnaire used and the dataset can be found, which will make it easier for readers to replicate the data: https://doi.org/10.21950/VYBSEP 3. Method: o The reviewer pointed out that while information about the reliability of the questionnaire was provided, information regarding the validity of the instrument was missing and should be included. We greatly appreciate the reviewer's suggestion. In section 2.1, "Task and procedure," we have added information regarding the validity of the instrument. We appreciate the detailed feedback provided, which will help us to refine and improve our manuscript. Yours faithfully, The authors of the manuscript. Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0311695.r002
24 Sep 2024 Decision Letter - Mohammed Saqr, Editor Has the educational use of digital technologies changed after the pandemic? A longitudinal Study PONE-D-24-15719R1 Dear Dr. Cabellos, 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. If you have any questions relating to publication charges, 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, Mohammed Saqr, Ph.D Academic Editor PLOS ONE Additional Editor Comments (optional): Reviewers' comments: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0311695.r003
Formally Accepted
2 Oct 2024 Acceptance Letter - Mohammed Saqr, Editor PONE-D-24-15719R1 PLOS ONE Dear Dr. Cabellos, 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 If revisions are needed, the production department will contact you directly to resolve them. If no revisions are needed, you will receive an email when the publication date has been set. At this time, we do not offer pre-publication proofs to authors during production of the accepted work. Please keep in mind that we are working through a large volume of accepted articles, so please give us a few weeks 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. 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. Mohammed Saqr Academic Editor PLOS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0311695.r004

Open letter on the publication of peer review reports

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

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

Learn more at ASAPbio .