Knowledge translation (KT) is a set of activities or processes for synthesising, disseminating, and applying research evidence in decision-making for the benefit of society. For KT to be successful, it is paramount for researchers to play an active role in encouraging evidence uptake and use in decision-making. We carried out a mapping exercise and interviews with research cluster heads at Cochrane South Africa (CSA) of the KT activities and processes being implemented (or are planned for implementation). We organized the mapping and interview results according to the KT themes described in the Cochrane KT framework. The KT framework comprises six themes, namely, (i) prioritization and co-production of research evidence; (ii) building a sustainable infrastructure for knowledge translation; (iii) engaging with audiences for knowledge exchange or dialogue; (iv) packaging, communication and dissemination which entails disseminating research to users; (v) building audience capacity to use evidence or training activities; and (vi) advocacy or improving the culture of using evidence. Through the mapping exercise and interviews, we learned that CSA researchers excelled in implementing activities and processes linked to most of the KT themes, including producing different types of systematic reviews and providing reliable evidence for health decision-making. Cochrane South Africa (CSA) researchers are also involved in mentoring and training postgraduate students and various health decision-makers . While they excel in the above-mentioned activities, “packaging, communication, and dissemination of research evidence” (theme iv) was identified as an area of improvement. Achieving Universal Health Coverage (UHC) is a priority in many low- and middle-income countries and has resulted in an increased demand for research evidence to inform health policy and practice decision-making -3. ReseaCochrane South Africa (CSA) is a non-profit organization that produces systematic reviews (and other types of research) on high priority health topics and applies an IKT approach to support the uptake and use of research evidence in policy and practice decision-making . CochranThe research cluster heads were asked to classify their work according to the following six themes: (i) prioritization and co-production of research evidence , which involves producing reviews which meet the needs of users; (ii) building a sustainable infrastructure for knowledge translation, which is about developing capacity in KT; (iii) engaging with audiences for knowledge exchange or dialogue to support their evidence-informed decision-making; (iv) packaging, communication, and dissemination, which entails disseminating research to users; (v) building audience capacity to use evidence or training activities which is about making Cochrane reviews accessible; (vi) advocacy or improving the culture of using evidence, which is about advocating for evidence-informed health decision-making.Below, we summarize the key findings from the mapping exercise . We founCochrane South Africa researchers are involved in mentoring and training a wide range of health decision-makers across South Africa and other African countries and facilitating workshops and webinars to advance evidence-informed decision-making, for example, through the Cochrane Africa Network, SA GRADE Network and Historically Disadvantaged Institutions in South Africa. Although research cluster heads mentioned that the advocacy work needs to be strengthened, CSA researchers carry out several awareness-raising activities on systematic reviews and the principles of evidence-informed decision-making. Research cluster heads identified “packaging, communication and dissemination” as the KT theme needing most improvement. They specifically mentioned that improvements are needed for translating research evidence for the public. Although research cluster heads are somewhat involved in sharing research evidence via newsletters, webinars, journal articles, websites, social media (Twitter), blog shots and press releases, they questioned whether their KT work is making a difference amongst various audiences. As such, CSA researchers are interested in learning more about monitoring and evaluating their KT activities and processes and developing a KT evaluation plan that will be implemented to determine if new and ongoing KT efforts are making an impact on actions, policy and practice amongst various audiences.The authors declare no competing interests.All the authors have read and agreed to the final manuscript.


In the globalized world we live in, it is increasingly common for people to speak more than one language. Although research in psychology has been widely interested in the study of false memories with the Deese/Roediger-McDermott (DRM) paradigm, to date, there is a scarcity of studies comparing false memories in the first and the second language . It is noteworthy that one of the most studied variables in the DRM paradigm, the backward associative strength (BAS), has hardly been studied in the L2. Moreover, the only study that recently examined this matter found differences in the knowledge of L2-word meaning between the high-BAS and low-BAS lists, which would hinder the interpretation of the BAS effect in L2 false memories. Taking all this into account, the current work examined false memories in the L1 (Spanish) and the L2 (English) as a function of BAS overcoming the limitations of the previous study. We selected DRM lists using both Spanish and English free association norms and lists were constructed to vary in BAS values while controlling the knowledge of word meaning. Results showed that false recognition was greater in the L1 or dominant language than in the L2 or non-dominant language. Furthermore, BAS modulated the false recognition in both the L1 and the L2. That is, false recognition was higher in high-BAS than low-BAS lists in both languages. Sensitivity index from the signal-detection theory helped us gain further insight into these results. The main findings are discussed in the light of theoretical models from both the false memory and the second language processing literature. Finally, practical implications and future research are provided. The increase in bilingualism has been influenced by the fact that the world has become more globalized and the use of the Internet has been extended to most of the world’s population . This haFurthermore, the scientific literature in psychology has also been interested in the study of false memories because of their practical implications in the field of forensic –9 or cliAlthough these two lines of research, the second language processing and the false memory, have been extensively studied separately, there is a scarcity of studies examining false memories in the first language (hereafter L1) as compared to the second language (hereafter L2). Precisely, a recent review conducted by Suarez and Beato  only fouAt a theoretical level, the greater false memory in the L1 than in the L2 can be accommodated by predictions of both the activation-monitoring framework (AMF) , a theorOn the one hand, the AMF proposes that the false memory effect occurs due to the combination of two processes: activation and monitoring processes. Due to the pre-existing associations among concepts, when a DRM list is studied, the conceptual representations of those words become activated and that activation spreads to associated concepts, among which the critical lure is included. In this way, the probability of falsely identifying the critical lure as a studied word  in a posterior memory test is increased . In addition, monitoring processes can be put in place that reduce the probability of producing false memories . Thus, according to the AMF, false memories occur when, first, the critical lures have been activated during the study phase and, subsequently, the monitoring processes fail preventing us from correctly retrieving the source of that activation.On the other hand, the RHM , 42 explTaken these two theoretical models together, predictions from both the AMF and the RHM can explain the greater false memories found in the dominant than the non-dominant language. According to the RHM, as speakers have stronger conceptual links in their L1 than in their L2, they will activate the conceptual representations faster and more directly from L1 words than L2 words. Thus, when participants study words in their L1, they would rapidly and automatically access the concepts and, in line with the AMF, this activation would spread throughout a well-organized network with strong connections to associatively related concepts, namely, the critical lures. This, in turn, would produce a higher level of false recognition in the L1 or dominant language than in the L2 or non-dominant language. In the case of participants who study words in their L2, they would activate the conceptual representations indirectly  or through weaker conceptual links, which would lead to the spread of activation in a less well-organized network with weaker connections to associated concepts , thus leading to the production of fewer false memories in the L2 than in the L1.As it was mentioned above, few studies have investigated false memories in an L2. In this regard, we found that one of the most studied variables in the DRM paradigm, the associative strength between the words of the list and the critical lure , has hardly been studied in the L2. Briefly, BAS refers to the associative strength from the studied items to the critical lure , 22, 49.Given the paucity of research on this topic, the present experiment pursues the general goal of examining false memories in the L1 and the L2 as a function of the associative strength between the words of the lists and the critical lures  overcoming the limitations of Beato and Arndt’s  study. WFurthermore, why is it important to conduct this replication study and to address the methodological limitations of the previous article ? On the Specifically, in this work we proposed the following objectives and hypotheses. First, regarding word knowledge, we controlled for and analyzed the knowledge of the meaning of the words included in the L2 DRM lists. This was critical because if we want to understand how the conceptual representations are accessed from words in the L2, it is essential to use words whose meaning is known, particularly important for the critical lures. If word meaning was not known, when participants study lists of words, their conceptual representations would not be activated and, therefore, activation would not spread to associated concepts . Moreover, if the critical lures were unknown, even though the list words were known, the activation could never reach and trigger the critical lures. Consequently, the associative memory illusion could not be observed. This is especially important for second language learners who are unlikely to know the meaning of all L2 words. To this end, prior to the selection of the materials, we conducted a study on a large set of words to estimate the percentage of knowledge of word meaning by L2 speakers. This was useful for selecting high- and low-BAS DRM lists that did not differ in their estimated knowledge of word meaning. Furthermore, at the end of the experiment, participants filled in a translation test to have an objective measure of the knowledge of L2-word meaning. We expected that there would be no significant differences in the knowledge of L2-word meaning between high- and low-BAS lists.Second, using DRM lists with one critical lure and FAS values of virtually zero, we expected to replicate the false recognition effect in the L2. In other words, we hypothesized, in line with previous studies, that participants would falsely recognize a higher proportion of critical lures than distractors in the L2 recognition test , 60–65.The third objective was to examine the effect of BAS on false recognition in the L2. Replicating the only previous study that, to our knowledge, has examined this topic , we expeThe fourth and last objective was to compare the false recognition between the L1 and the L2 in both high-BAS and low-BAS lists. Predictions from both the RHM and the AMF led us to expect a higher false recognition in the L1 than the L2, both in high- and low-BAS lists. Due to the stronger conceptual links in the L1 than in the L2 , people Mage = 19.70, SD = 2.25, 87.50% women) voluntarily participated in this study. All participants were native Spanish speakers and were living in Spain at the time of the experiment. In addition, they had learned English as a second language (L2) in an academic context. On average, they started learning their L2 when they were 4.45 years of age (SD = 1.72) and continued studying it for an average of 13.60 years (SD = 2.00). Also, participants self-assessed their L2 proficiency as moderate, giving a mean score of 6.00 (SD = 1.61) on a Likert-type scale ranging from 1 (elementary proficiency) to 10 (native-speaker level). Half of the participants performed the task in their L1  and the other half in their L2 . The sociodemographic characteristics of these two groups are shown in A total of 120 undergraduate students (f < .10) in our experimental design.Sample size was set by reviewing the number of participants included in recent  previous studied published in impact journals . In each language, eight lists were selected to have high-BAS values and the other eight were selected to have low-BAS values  = -11.21, p < .001, 95% CI , d = -5.60. The high- and low-BAS lists did not differ in terms of FAS values, t(14) = 0.37, p = .718, 95% CI , d = 0.18, being these values extremely low (close to zero) for all lists. Furthermore, words from the two BAS conditions did not differ in terms of word length , t(14) = 1.78, p = .097, 95% CI , d = 0.89, nor in their frequency  = 0.62, p = .542, 95% CI , d = 0.31, which was, on average, 1.13 (SD = 0.30) for high-BAS lists and 1.22 (SD = 0.27) for low-BAS lists.On the one hand, the 16 Spanish DRM lists were obtained from a previous normative study . The BASom EsPal ), t(14) SD = 18.22) of the participants from this previous study. In addition, high- and low-BAS lists were selected such that there were no statistically significant differences in the estimated knowledge of word meaning , t(14) = 1.06, p = .306, 95% CI , d = 0.53.On the other hand, the 16 English DRM lists were created from Nelson et al.’s  free asst(30) = -0.01, p = .989, 95% CI , d = -0.01, nor in their FAS values, t(30) = -0.79, p = .435, 95% CI , d = -0.28. Also, as L1 lists, high-BAS L2 lists were found to have higher BAS values than low-BAS L2 lists, t(7.50) = -11.68, p < .001, 95% CI , d = -5.84. At the same time, high- and low-BAS L2 lists did not differ in their FAS values, t(14) = -0.85, p = .409, 95% CI , d = -0.43, word length, t(14) = 0.29, p = .779, 95% CI , d = 0.14, or frequency  = 0.48, p = .641, 95% CI , d = 0.24, with frequency mean values of 1.61 (SD = 0.22) and 1.66 (SD = 0.24) for high- and low-BAS lists, respectively.The second criterion for the selection of the English DRM lists was regarding associative strength. Specifically, English DRM lists were created to be as similar as possible to the Spanish lists in terms of BAS and FAS values see . SpanishUBTLEXUS ), t(14) From the set of 16 DRM lists in each language, 10 were used in the study phase, half with high-BAS values and the other half with low-BAS values. The remaining six lists served as distractors in the recognition test . Three versions of the experimental task were created so that all lists served as both studied and distractor lists. The recognition test consisted of 80 words, of which 40 were studied words , 10 critical lures, and 30 words from the distractor lists .Since we were using an estimation of the knowledge of L2-word meaning, and it could differ from the actual knowledge of the participants, a translation test was created for the words included in the English lists of each version of the experimental task. Concretely, this test included the 100 English words that participants would have seen during the experiment .The experiment was conducted in group sessions of up to 19 participants. Each session lasted, approximately, half an hour. Each participant was provided with a computer and a keyboard to perform the task. For this experiment, a blocking by language procedure  was usedhttps://osf.io/qjhs3/).In addition, participants were equally distributed across one of the three versions of the experimental task in each language. Before starting the experiment, participants signed the written informed consent. Afterwards, they filled in a socio-demographic questionnaire requesting the following information: age, gender, first language, L2 age of acquisition, years of formal L2 training, and two Likert scales to self-assess their knowledge in their L1 and L2 . Subsequently, the experimenter read aloud the instructions for the study phase as each participant followed them on their computer screen  in the center of the computer screen in lower case letters. A 36-point black Verdana font on a white background was used.After the study phase, participants performed the recognition test. They were informed that they would be presented with words one at a time in the center of the computer screen. Their task was to judge whether each word had been previously presented in the study phase by pressing the corresponding key on the keyboard. Participants were instructed to place their index fingers on each key throughout the recognition test and to try to respond as quickly as possible, trying not to make mistakes. Words were presented in a random order for each participant using E-Prime 2.0 . Subsequd and partial eta squared (η2p), and the 95% confidence intervals (CI) for the mean difference are detailed. Where appropriate, in the repeated measures ANOVAs, degrees of freedom were corrected using the Greenhouse-Geisser estimator. Bonferroni correction was used for post hoc tests and the p-value reported in these tests were the adjusted values for multiple comparisons.Analyses of variance (ANOVAs) were performed using JASP Team . Across F = 53.37, p < .001, η2p = 0.475. Post hoc comparisons using Bonferroni correction showed that the meaning of the studied words (M = .84) was known to a lesser extent than the meaning of the critical lures (M = .98), t(59) = -8.92, p < .001, 95% CI , d = -1.15, and critical distractors (M = .99), t(59) = -9.61, p < .001, 95% CI , d = -1.24, both with near-perfect knowledge. Furthermore, the meaning of the distractors (M = .85) was also known to a lesser extent than that of the critical lures, t(59) = 8.24, p < .001, 95% CI , d = 1.06, and critical distractors, t(59) = -8.93, p < .001, 95% CI , d = -1.15. However, no differences were found in the proportion of words whose meaning was known between critical lures and critical distractors, t(59) = -0.69, p = 1.000, 95% CI , d = -0.09, nor between studied words and distractors, t(59) = -0. 68, p = 1.000, 95% CI , d = -0.09. In other words, the knowledge of the meaning of the critical lures of L2 DRM lists was almost perfect. In addition, the meaning of the critical lures was known more often than the meaning of the associates of the lists, regardless of whether the DRM lists served as studied or distractor lists.The results of the translation test, as expected, showed that participants did not know the meaning of all L2 words see . ParticiF = 62.44, p < .001, η2p = 0.514, which indicated that, as discussed in the previous analysis, critical lures’ meaning was known more often than studied words’ meaning. Furthermore, the main effect of BAS was not significant, F = 0.05, p = .827, η2p = 0.001, indicating that the knowledge of word meaning did not differ between high- and low-BAS conditions. Finally, a significant Word type x BAS interaction was found, F = 4.05, p = .049, η2p = 0.064. As shown in t(59) = -1.21, p = 1.000, 95% CI , d = -0.17, nor for the critical lures , t(59) = 1.53, p = .773, 95% CI , d = 0.18. These results indicate that the differences that might be found in the subsequent analyses between high- and low-BAS lists could not be due to differences in the knowledge of word meaning.A crucial check for our experiment was whether lists with high and low BAS differed in the knowledge of word meaning. To this end, we conducted a 2  x 2  repeated measures ANOVA on the proportion of words whose meaning was known. This analysis showed a main effect of word type, d’ was included for the list items and the critical lures.F = 329.71, p < .001, η2p = 0.848. The Bonferroni post hoc comparisons indicated that the proportion of “yes” responses was higher for studied words  than for critical lures , t(59) = 13.05, p < .001, 95% CI , d = 1.69, as well as for distractors , t(59) = 28.43, p < .001, 95% CI , d = 3.67, and for critical distractors , t(59) = 24.75, p < .001, 95% CI , d = 3.20. Furthermore, participants gave more “yes” responses to critical lures than to distractors, t(59) = 15.38, p < .001, 95% CI , d = 1.99, and critical distractors, t(59) = 11.70, p < .001, 95% CI , d = 1.51. These confirm that the L1 (Spanish) DRM lists used in this experiment produced the false memory effect. Finally, the false alarms to critical distractions were greater than to distractors in the L1, t(59) = -3.69, p = .002, 95% CI , d = 3.20.First, to check whether we replicated the false recognition effect in the L1, a repeated measures ANOVA was conducted with the factor word type  on the proportion of “yes” responses on the recognition test. This analysis yielded a main effect of word type, F = 127.57, p < .001, η2p = 0.684. The proportion of “yes” responses on the recognition test was greater for the studied words than for the critical lures . Moreover, a main effect of BAS was found, F = 19.63, p < .001, η2p = 0.250. There was a higher proportion of “yes” responses for words in the high-BAS lists (M = .68) than in the low-BAS lists (M = .55). Lastly, a Word type x BAS interaction was found, F = 16.33, p < .001, η2p = 0.217. The Bonferroni post hoc comparisons revealed that false recognition was higher in high- than low-BAS lists , t(59) = 5.97, p < .001, 95% CI , d = 0.63, whereas no statistically significant differences were found between high- and low-BAS lists in true recognition , t(59) = 1.13, p = 1.000, 95% CI , d = 0.20.Once we have proved that our lists produced the false memory effect in the L1, we wanted to check whether we replicated the BAS effect. A 2  x 2  repeated measures ANOVA showed a main effect of word type, F = 347.76, p < .001, η2p = 0.855, and Bonferroni post hoc comparisons indicated that the results went in line with the ones found for the L1. Precisely, the proportion of true recognition was higher than the proportion of false recognition , t(59) = 23.72, p < .001, 95% CI , d = 3.06, and higher than the proportion of false alarms to distractors (M = .17), t(59) = 26.48, p < .001, 95% CI , d = 3.42, and to critical distractors (M = .13), t(59) = 28.15, p < .001, 95% CI , d = 3.63. Moreover, participants gave more “yes” responses to critical lures than to distractors, t(59) = 2.76, p = .038, 95% CI , d = 0.36, and critical distractors, t(59) = 4.43, p < .001, 95% CI , d = 0.57. This confirms that the L2 (English) DRM lists created in this experiment produced the false memory effect in second-language learners, although apparently to a lesser extent than in the L1 (L2: .23 vs. L1: .45). Finally, no differences were found between the false alarms to the distractors and the critical distractors in the L2, t(59) = 1.67, p = .584, 95% CI , d = 0.22.Parallel analyses to those in the L1 will now be discussed on the L2 data. A repeated measures ANOVA was conducted with the factor word type  on the proportion of “yes” responses on the L2 versions of the recognition test. This analysis showed a main effect of word type, F = 385.91, p < .001, η2p = 0.867, showing that the proportion of “yes” responses on the recognition test were greater for studied words than for critical lures . A significant main effect of BAS was also found, F = 17.12, p < .001, η2p = 0.225, indicating that the proportion of “yes” responses was greater in high-BAS lists (M = .55) than in low-BAS lists (M = .47). Finally, a Word type x BAS interaction was observed, F = 5.21, p = .026, η2p = 0.081. Post hoc comparisons using Bonferroni correction indicated that there was an effect of BAS on false recognition, being the critical lures of the high-BAS lists falsely recognized more often than the critical lures of the low-BAS lists , t(59) = 4.57, p < .001, 95% CI , d = 0.48. However, the effect of BAS was not observed for the studied words , t(59) = 1.41, p = .962, 95% CI , d = 0.27.To examine the effect of BAS on true and false recognition in the L2, we executed a 2  x 2  repeated measures ANOVA. This analysis revealed a main effect of word type, d’) derived from the signal detection theory —z[P]. Two d’ indexes were calculated in each language  and d’ for critical lures . On the one hand, to obtain list-item d’, the z-score of the proportion of hits to the studied words minus the z-score of the proportion of false alarms to distractors was calculated for each participant. On the other hand, critical-lure d’ was calculated by subtracting the z-scores of the proportion of “yes” responses to the critical lures from the z-scores of the proportion of false alarms to critical distractors. It should be noted that participants’ perfect accuracy  was adjusted to avoid obtaining infinite d’ values. Specifically, proportions equal to 0 were replaced by 1/2N and proportions equal to 1 by 1–(1/2N), where N is the number of trials on which the proportion is based , d = 0.38, but not for studied words , t(119) = 2.03, p = .261, 95% CI , d = 0.23.Using d’ and critical-lure d’, but this time only considering the proportion of “yes” responses to L2 words whose meaning was known (see Although the participants who performed the task in their L2 knew the meaning of most of the words (86.05%) presented in the experiment, the knowledge of L2-word meaning was not perfect. By contrast, as in the DRM literature, L1 words were very common , so it is probably safe to assume that undergraduate students knew their meaning. Since it could then be assumed that participants who performed the task in the L2 knew the meaning of fewer words presented in the experiment than participants who performed the task in the L1, one might wonder whether the lower level of false recognition found in the L2, as compared to the L1, could be due to the fact that participants did not know the meaning of all L2 words. To rule out this possibility, we calculated again list-item nown see , leadingF = 450.55, p < .001, η2p = 0.792, indicating that d’ values were higher for the studied words than for the critical lures . Moreover, a significant main effect of BAS was found, F = 21.63, p < .001, η2p = 0.155, with high-BAS lists yielding higher d’ values than low-BAS lists . A significant main effect of language, F = 31.45, p < .001, η2p = 0.210, showed that d’ values were greater in the L1 than in the L2 . Finally, there was a marginally significant interaction Word type x BAS, F = 3.83, p = .053, η2p = 0.031. As we had an a priori hypothesis regarding this interaction , we continue with the analysis of this marginally significant interaction. Post hoc comparisons using Bonferroni correction showed higher d’ values for critical lures in high-BAS lists than low-BAS lists , t(119) = 4.71, p < .001, 95% CI , d = 0.51, but not for studied words , t(119) = 2.00, p = .280, 95% CI , d = 0.22. Therefore, this analysis confirmed that the differences found in true and false recognition between the L1 and the L2 are not explain by that fact that participants do not have perfect knowledge of L2-word meaning.We repeated the 2  x 2  x 2  ANOVA and observed that the results of the previous analysis were replicated. Specifically, this ANOVA showed a significant main effect of word type, In addition, it would be important to examine whether the self-reported L2 proficiency moderates the BAS effect on L2 false memory. Even though to examine the effect of L2 proficiency was not among the main goals of this work, some analyses have been run to test whether the higher the L2 proficiency, the closer the performance to the L1 condition, namely, the higher the false recognition. This would be the expected result based on the RHM as it states that when L2 speakers become more proficient, the conceptual links from L2 words to the concepts become stronger. As shown in d’ values of 1.00 vs. 0.59). In contrast, in the L2, even though our last analyses also showed that BAS modulated false recognition, there is a difference with respect to L1 results. Specifically, in the L2, participants only encoded information about the critical lures in the high-BAS condition (d’ = 0.43) but did not encode information about the critical lures in the low-BAS condition (d’ = -0.04), as shown in t(59) = -1.00, p = 1.000, 95% CI , d = -0.18. Lastly, the lowest false recognition rate was obtained in the L2 for low-BAS list.Finally, regarding the comparison between the L1 and the L2 DRM illusion as a function of BAS, there are two points worth noting. First, in the L1, participants encoded information about the critical lures of both high- and low-BAS lists, being the amount of information greater in the high-BAS than the low-BAS condition . This study is of interest since the only previous study that, to our knowledge, has investigated this issue had certain limitations that hindered the interpretation of the BAS effect on L2 false recognition . In thisThe most significant improvement and novel contribution raised by our experiment over the prior work by Beato and Arndt  was to cThe results of our experiment, first, replicated the false recognition effect in the L1, and, moreover, the well-studied effect of BAS on false recognition in this language. That is, false recognition was higher in high-BAS lists than in low-BAS lists , 51–54. d’ values in the L2 indicated that the difference in this language in false recognition between the high- and low-BAS lists was due to the fact that participants had not encoded information about the critical lures in the low-BAS condition  but had encoded information about the critical lures in the high-BAS condition (d’ = 0.43). That is, it seems that critical lures in low-BAS lists were not activated during the study phase, in contrast to the critical lures in the high-BAS lists which were activated. In other words, our data showed that, in the L2, the spreading activation only reached concepts that were strongly associated with the words in the list but did not extend to concepts that were further away in the semantic memory. These findings go in line with the theoretical models focusing on the concept of fuzziness as the main feature of the L2 lexicon Reviewers' comments:Reviewer's Responses to Questions <font color="black"> Comments to the Author1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions? </font> 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: YesReviewer #2: YesReviewer #3: Yes********** <font color="black"> 2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?  </font> Reviewer #1: YesReviewer #2: YesReviewer #3: No********** <font color="black"> 3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?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. </font> The Reviewer #1: YesReviewer #2: YesReviewer #3: Yes********** <font color="black"> 4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English? </font> 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: YesReviewer #2: YesReviewer #3: Yes********** <font color="black"> 5. Review Comments to the Author </font> 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. Reviewer #1: This paper presents a single experiment focused on the study of false memories in second language with use of the DRM paradigm. The experiment builds upon Beato and Ardnt’ earliest study with the main aim of overcoming their limitations.Despite the replication of a single study with the implementation of methodological improvements is always desirable and welcome, the current work lacks of any novelty either by the inclusion of a new variable or a follow-up study extending the mere replication of the results. Therefore, there is a lack of theoretical advance or novel contribution. Moreover, it has some issues with the order of presentation of the information in both, introduction and discussion.Yet, I acknowledge that the topic of research is currently of utmost relevance, the effort and scrupulosity in the methods and result section.Thus, the current research I do not consider it complies with PLOSone standards for publication unless a new follow-up study and major changes in the text are included.Here there are several comments the authors might consider in future submissions:In page 6, starting in line 124, three main issues are raised from Beato and Ardnt:a- the use of 3 lures instead of 1b- DRM list varied in levels of BAS and FASc- Not control of participants’ meaning knowledge for L2 wordsIn page 7, starting in line 146, authors presented what they implemented to overcome these threeissues but in a different order  which disturb the readiness of the manuscript.In the discussion it is again found this lack of order. Including such detailed order of hypotheses and objectives in the introduction should have prompt to follow it in the discussion.Moreover, the presented study itself also presents some limitations that should have been the least mentioned there: for example, instead of self-report on second language command, an standardize test could have been used.Discussion:Page 24, line 497:“Although this might seem obvious, in the literature on L2 false memories, until Beato and Arndt’s [44] recent study, as far as we know, no one had considered this matter”.Change for:“Although this might seem obvious, in the literature on L2 false memories with the use of DRM, until Beato and Arndt’s [44] recent study, as far as we know, no one had considered this matter”.Page 27, line 582:I would suggest to re-write this sentence:“As a final remark, we would like to suggest some practical implications and future research”.Because what it follows it is only suggested one practical thing: “[…] future research may benefit from employing experimental procedures that study the activation processes more directly, such as, for example, the semantic priming paradigm”.Reviewer #2: This study is investigating false memories using the DRM paradigm in both L1 and L2 for bilingual individuals. Unlike previous studies, this study examined the importance of using both high and low BAS lists but made sure that the lists were equivalent in participants’ knowledge of the meaning of words in the lists. Even when controlling for knowledge of word meaning, the authors showed higher false recognition with high-BAS lists than in low-BAS lists.Overall, I thought the authors did a very nice job of setting up the study, guiding the reader through the logic for the study, and explaining the need for the study. I also thought their methodology and attention to detail in setting up their study was also excellent.While I think the authors did an excellent job of discussing and introducing the two theories (AMT and RHM), which I believe to be very relevant to their study, some individuals might like to see some mention of the fuzzy-trace theory. I think the AMT and RHM theories are enough, but the fuzzy-trace theory is the other primary theory in the false memory literature.On page 9 (in the Participants section) and page 13 (in the Procedure section), the authors mentioned that participants were only tested in either their L1 language (Spanish) or their L2 language (English). I was curious why this was done. Why not test participants in both their L1 and their L2 language?On page 14: The authors stated the participants who were tested in their L2 were asked to translate the 100 English words that they had been presented with during the study. However, on page 21 (lines 449-451) the authors mentioned that d’ scores were calculated for the proportion of “yes” responses to L2 words whose meaning was known. Initially, it wasn’t clear to me if the participants provided the meaning for each of the words or if they were simply asked to indicate if they knew the word meaning (a yes or no response). While I did understand what the authors were meaning here, it did take me a few different readings to fully understand what they meant. I’m not sure if this was an issue with the authors explanation of this or me being somewhat dense in not understanding it quickly. I actually would have liked to see both participants who were tested in their L1 language and those who were tested in their L2 language complete this task, so that a comparison could have been made on their general knowledge of English words. Obviously this was more important to do for those tested in their L2, so I understand why the authors did this task as they did. A related issue is on page 15 where the authors mention that participants were most successful in knowing the meaning of the critical lures compared to any other word types . I would expect that this is an important necessity for participants to recognize the critical lures and could be an alternative factor that would help explain differences in L1 and L2 lists. This could be indicative of a gist-based representation that is consistent with fuzzy-trace theory.On page 16 (lines 330-334): The authors mentioned that there was a Word Type x BAS interaction. However, in the comparison is seems unlikely as studied words and critical lure recognition seemed to be nearly identical for both the high-BAS  and low-BAS lists . Perhaps I’m missing something, but this doesn’t make sense. Maybe adding a table of means for the L2 Knowledge of word meaning would be helpful to see these data more clearly. In this table the authors could provide the percent/proportion of each word type that was known by participants.On page 19 (lines 390-392): The authors mentioned that the L2 English DRM lists created in their study produced false memories. However, it seems apparent that they did not produce false memories to the same extent as they did in the L1. This might be worth noting here.On page 21 (lines 445-448): The authors mentioned that participants’ who were tested in the L2 knew the meaning of fewer word presented than participants who performed the task in the L1. While this statement is probably true, I didn’t think the authors tested participants for the meaning of words in the L1. I thought only L2 participants were tested on their knowledge of the meaning of words. On page 22 (lines 464-466), the authors stated that their analysis confirmed that the differences in true and false recognition between the L1 and L2 participants was not due to a lower knowledge of L2-word meaning. Again, if only the L2 participants were tested on their knowledge of the word meanings, this seems somewhat confusing.I thought the authors’ explanation for why participants showed more false memories for the L2 word lists was higher with the high-BAS lists than the low-BAS lists on page 25 was very clear and organized. It appears that they authors found a nice pattern of results such that false memory was highest in L1 for high-BAS lists, moderate in L1 for low-BAS lists and also moderate for L2 high-BAS lists, and lowest for L2 for low-BAS lists. These seem to indicate the importance of critical lure activation that would be expected for the AMT. The only shortcoming that I see is that I don’t think the authors made the distinction between the cognitive distinction between the L1/low-BAS lists and the L2/high-BAS lists. What do the authors think is going on between these two conditions and how might they be explained with the AMT, RHM, or Fuzzy-trace theories?Overall, I enjoyed the article and thought the authors did an excellent job at conducting, presenting, and explaining their research. Below I have a few small wording changes to help the authors.Wording SuggestionsLine 44: change wording – change from “has been favored by the fact” to “has been influenced by the fact”Line 83: change wording – change from “the critical lures has” to “the critical lures have”Line 161: change wording – change “cero” to “zero”Line 168: change wording – change “Arndt” to “Arndt’s”Line 190: change wording – change “when they had” to “when they were”Line 365: change wording – change “Once we have proofed” to “Once we have proved”Line 515: change wording – change “cero” to “zero”Reviewer #3: PONE-D-22-27134False memory in a second language:The importance of controlling the knowledge of word meaningSummary:This research examined true and false recognition using DRM lists in participants’ native language Spanish (L1) or in participants’ second language (L2). The authors use activation monitoring framework and the revised hierarchical model to deduce their hypotheses and predictions. Participants viewed 16 lists with six studied words per list, in either L1 or L2. Within each language group, ½ the lists had a high backward associative strength (BAS) and half had a low BAS. Across languages, researchers controlled for BAS values, forward associative strength (FAS) values, and L2 knowledge of word meaning. Additionally, all participants self-reported a moderate level of fluency and there appeared to be no differences across sociodemographic variables. The results supported the authors’ hypotheses of greater false recognition in L1 than L2 as well as higher false recognition for high BAS vs low BAS DRM lists; moreover, the false recognition effect in L2 was only found for high BAS DRM lists. The results replicate findings reported by Beato and Arndt (2021), but used a between-subject design, different materials, and removed a potential confound of L2 knowledge of word meaning. Though the authors do demonstrate a more tightly controlled experiment (with respect to BAS) and support their analyses using d’ analyses, they replicate previous findings concerning the modulating effect of BAS on false recognition in L2.Main Points:1. One question I had was why the authors’ chose to use different DRM lists for their high and low BAS conditions? In Beato and Arndt’s work, they kept the critical lure constant, using top four and bottom four associates of the same critical lure to create the high and low BAS conditions, respectively. This was done to ensure that there were any item differences that could occur with using different lists. Though BAS values did not differ across DRM list language, can the authors be sure there are no item differences? In addition, why did the authors manipulate DRM list language as a between-subject variable rather than a within-subject variable?2. Another question I had is about fluency. Though the authors report that participants self-reported as moderately fluent (M = 6.00) and that there were no differences between participants across each list language group, the authors do not mention predictions made by the revised hierarchical model with respect to fluency. In their E2, Beato and Arndt find that the effects of BAS on false recognition in L2 are also influenced by differences in participants’ fluency. It is expected that as participants become more fluent in their L2 that the links between L2 and concepts strengthen, which also has implications for activation monitoring framework. Thus, it appears that irrespective of L2 word knowledge, fluency may play an important role in the reported BAS effects on false recognition in L2.3. I guess I am also curious about cross-language effects , as I think it would really test the revised hierarchical model and AMF as well as the effects of BAS.4. On page 19, the authors perform a repeated measure ANOVA and indicate they used a Bonferroni correction for post hoc tests. The authors report a significant pairwise comparison finding a higher proportion “yes” responses to critical lures than to distractors. The exact p-value reported is .038. Is this value significant when applying the Bonferroni correction for experimentwise error? How many tests are being performed here?5. Similarly, on page 22, the authors report a “marginally significant interaction with Word type x BAS). Given the reported p-value is .053, this value is not significant if using a .05 significance value. In my opinion, the authors should not have proceeded with conducting post-hoc analyses on their data.Minor typo. Reference #57, Diliberto is misspelled as Deliberto.********** <font color="black"> 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. </font> Reviewer #1: NoYes: Jeffrey S. AnastasiReviewer #2: Yes: Kristen Diliberto-MacalusoReviewer #3: **********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.While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool,  25 Jan 2023January 24th, 2023 Dear Dr. Garrido:Thank you very much for your response. We are very grateful for the suggestions you and the reviewers made on the article. In the first place we would like to state how much we appreciated the very detailed set of comments from both the academic editor and the reviewers to the paper PONE-D-22-27134 entitled “False memory in a second language: the importance of controlling the knowledge of word meaning”. Undoubtedly, all your comments were very useful to improve the manuscript, making now a much stronger contribution to the literature. The paper has been modified to clarify some questions and to respond to the comments. As requested, we are sending three documents: 1) a rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer ; 2) a marked-up copy of the manuscript that highlights the changes made to the original version ; and 3) an unmarked version of the revised paper without tracked changes .We hope these changes answer the reviewers and the editor and explain the changes that have been made in the paper.I look forward to hearing from you. Yours sincerely,Mar SuarezUniversity of SalamancaFaculty of PsychologyDepartment of Basic Psychology, Psychobiology, and Methodology of Behavioural SciencesAvda. de la Merced, 109-13137005 Salamanca, Spainmarsuarez@usal.esE-mail: AttachmentResponse to Reviewers.pdfSubmitted filename: Click here for additional data file. 11 Apr 2023 <div> PONE-D-22-27134R1 </div>  <div> False memory in a second language: the importance of controlling the knowledge of word meaning </div>  <div> PLOS ONEDear Dr. Suarez,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.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 submit your revised manuscript by May 26 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  </div> 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'. <div> 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.Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript: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.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: We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.Kind regards,Margarida Vaz GarridoAcademic EditorPLOS ONEJournal Requirements:Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice.Additional Editor Comments:First of all, I apologize for the length of the reviewing process. Unfortunately, one of the previous reviewers could not revise the paper again, and the two remaining reviewers presented quite different views regarding the resubmitted version. One reviewer recommended accepting the paper as it is, and the other recommended not accepting it on the grounds of lack of novelty to the current state of the art. While I agree that theoretical innovation is important, novelty is not a mandatory requirement to publish in PLOS ONE. I also acknowledge the authors' efforts in detailing how the current replication overcomes the limitations of previous work. Still, I invited an additional expert that also concurs with this view. I am not recommending accepting the paper as it is, but I am confident that the authors will be able to address the issues raised by reviewer 4. I also recommend the authors to provide a point-by-point reply to all the comments raised by this reviewer, including an indication of the page/line where they introduced changes.[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]Reviewers' comments:Reviewer's Responses to Questions <font color="black"> Comments to the Author </font> 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)Reviewer #3: All comments have been addressedReviewer #4: (No Response)********** <font color="black"> 2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions? </font> 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: PartlyReviewer #3: YesReviewer #4: Yes********** <font color="black"> 3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?  </font> Reviewer #1: YesReviewer #3: YesReviewer #4: Yes********** <font color="black"> 4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?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. </font> The Reviewer #1: YesReviewer #3: YesReviewer #4: Yes********** <font color="black"> 5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English? </font> 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: YesReviewer #3: YesReviewer #4: Yes********** <font color="black"> 6. Review Comments to the Author </font> 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. Reviewer #1: I am revising this article for second time, and unfortunately I have to recommed to Reject it.As mentioned in my previous review, in order to reach PLOSone standards for publication this manuscript requires a follow-up study which is not included in the new version. Withouth this follow-up study the manuscript lacks of novelty to the current state of art.Finally, the letter with the detailed answer for each Reviewers´comments is just a mere general cover letter. For future submissions I would suggest to the authors to provide a point by point answer to all Reviewers´comments including page/line where the changes were done.Reviewer #3: I have re-read the manuscript including the changes and additions the authors made to the manuscript. I believe that they have sufficiently addressed each of the reviewer's questions in their revisions. The authors ran a carefully controlled study ruling out the potential influence of a 3rd variable, L2 word knowledge, on false recognition of high and low BAS DRM lists (while controlling for FAS across lists). The work supports existing theories of false memory and second language acquisition. I recommend the paper for publication.Reviewer #4: The manuscript entitled "False memory in a second language: the importance of controlling the knowledge of word meaning" aims to study the effect of the backward associative strength in false memories in native and non-native languages. It is a replication study that overcomes the limitations of a previous one and thus allows the authors to make stronger inferences regarding the BAS effect in false memories in L1 and L2.I have received the revision of this work and reviewed all previous reviewers' comments and the authors' responses. I do recommend the publication of this version. I find that they have successfully improved the former manuscript following the recommendations of the reviewers and the editor. I enjoyed reading this work, and I believe it is well-motivated, with a test of important theoretical approaches in both the field of false memory and bilingualism. It is well-written, and the methods are rigorous, with exquisite control of the materials used. Also, I appreciate that they made available materials and data.Below I have added a couple of comments.Comments:Page 7, line 145. In the introduction, I recommend succinctly explaining, with a couple of words, some important concepts for potential readers that might not be familiar with them. For example, this research might interest psycholinguists unfamiliar with BAS and FAS or the main idea of the fuzzy-trace theory.In the methods, did the authors control for frequency in the lists/critical lures? Word frequency is important when dealing with concept retrieval in activation accounts. As a reader, I would like to know whether it has impacted the BAS manipulation .Finally, a couple of typos:Page 28, line 627. In "These results are consistent with previous studied", it should be "studies".Page 8, line 166. "the BAS effect occur" should be "occurs".********** <font color="black"> 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. </font> Reviewer #1: NoYes: Kristen Diliberto-MacalusoReviewer #3: Reviewer #4: No**********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.While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool,  18 Apr 2023JOURNAL REQUIREMENTS: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.RESPONSE: The authors believe that the reference list is complete and correct, and that they have not cited any retracted paper. We corrected a typo in the journal name of reference 59, and included three new references that were needed to properly implement the changes suggested by reviewer 4. The new references are the followings: 49. Beato MS, Suarez M, Cadavid S. Disentangling the effects of backward/forward associative strength and theme identifiability in false memory. Psicothema. 2023;35: 178–188. doi:10.7334/psicothema2022.28869. Duchon A, Perea M, Sebastián-Gallés N, Martí A, Carreiras M. EsPal: one-stop shopping for Spanish word properties. Behav Res Methods. 2013;45: 1246–1258. doi:10.3758/s13428-013-0326-170. Brysbaert M, New B. Moving beyond Kučera and Francis: a critical evaluation of current word frequency norms and the introduction of a new and improved word frequency measure for American English. Behav Res Methods. 2009;41: 977–990. doi:10.3758/BRM.41.4.977REVIEWER #4REVIEWER COMMENT: I have received the revision of this work and reviewed all previous reviewers' comments and the authors' responses. I do recommend the publication of this version. I find that they have successfully improved the former manuscript following the recommendations of the reviewers and the editor. I enjoyed reading this work, and I believe it is well-motivated, with a test of important theoretical approaches in both the field of false memory and bilingualism. It is well-written, and the methods are rigorous, with exquisite control of the materials used. Also, I appreciate that they made available materials and data.RESPONSE: We thank Reviewer 4 for the kind words and the feedback on our manuscript. All the thoughtful comments on our submission have been considered and implemented. We believe that the manuscript is stronger and clearer now.REVIEWER COMMENT: Page 7, line 145. In the introduction, I recommend succinctly explaining, with a couple of words, some important concepts for potential readers that might not be familiar with them. For example, this research might interest psycholinguists unfamiliar with BAS and FAS or the main idea of the fuzzy-trace theory.RESPONSE: Thank you for raising this important topic. As suggested, we have explained, with a couple of words, the concepts of BAS and FAS, and the main idea of the fuzzy-trace theory. We have also referred the reader to useful literature about these topics. We think that having included these brief explanations will be useful to some readers. The text included in the manuscript is as follows:[Page 6/lines 130-131] “Briefly, BAS refers to the associative strength from the studied items to the critical lure .”[Page 7/lines 148-150] “Finally, Beato and Arndt used DRM lists that varied in the levels of both backward (BAS) and forward associative strength .”[Page 4/lines 77-79] “An alternative explanation for the false memory effect is given by the fuzzy-trace theory, which states that false memory appears when the gist information of the list  is extracted, and the retrieval of verbatim representations is not enough to reject the critical lure .”REVIEWER COMMENT: In the methods, did the authors control for frequency in the lists/critical lures? Word frequency is important when dealing with concept retrieval in activation accounts. As a reader, I would like to know whether it has impacted the BAS manipulation .RESPONSE: We thank the reviewer for bringing this matter up. Yes, we control for frequency (and word length) in high-BAS vs. low-BAS lists in both languages. We agree with the reviewer that frequency is an important variable when dealing with lexical access and concept retrieval. We have made that information available for the reader in the method section: [Page 13/lines 264-268] “Furthermore, words from the two BAS conditions did not differ in terms of word length , t(14) = 1.78, p = .097, 95% CI , d = 0.89, nor in their frequency , t(14) = 0.62, p = .542, 95% CI , d = 0.31, which was, on average, 1.13 (SD = 0.30) for high-BAS lists and 1.22 (SD = 0.27) for low-BAS lists.”[Page 14/lines 291-294] “At the same time, high- and low-BAS L2 lists did not differ in their FAS values, t(14) = -0.85, p = .409, 95% CI , d = -0.43, word length, t(14) = 0.29, p = .779, 95% CI , d = 0.14, or frequency , t(14) = 0.48, p = .641, 95% CI , d = 0.24, with frequency mean values of 1.61 (SD = 0.22) and 1.66 (SD = 0.24) for high- and low-BAS lists, respectively.”REVIEWER COMMENT: Finally, a couple of typos:Page 28, line 627. In "These results are consistent with previous studied", it should be "studies".Page 8, line 166. "the BAS effect occur" should be "occurs".RESPONSE: Thank you very much for your suggestions. We have corrected the typos in the revised manuscript. The new text now appears in page 8 (lines 169-170) and page 30 (lines 638).AttachmentResponse to Reviewers.pdfSubmitted filename: Click here for additional data file. 2 May 2023False memory in a second language: the importance of controlling the knowledge of word meaningPONE-D-22-27134R2Dear Dr. SuarezWe’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.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.An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at onepress@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 Kind regards,Margarida Vaz GarridoAcademic EditorPLOS ONEAdditional Editor Comments :Thank you for addressing all the comments so thoroughly and reviewing the manuscript accordingly. I think the final result constitutes an interesting contribution to field. 3 May 2023PONE-D-22-27134R2 False memory in a second language: the importance of controlling the knowledge of word meaning Dear Dr. Suarez:I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department. onepress@plos.org.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 plosone@plos.org. If we can help with anything else, please email us at Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access. Kind regards, PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staffon behalf ofDr. Margarida Vaz Garrido Academic EditorPLOS ONE