Peer Review History
Original SubmissionFebruary 8, 2023 |
---|
PGPH-D-23-00212 Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on exercise habits and overweight in Japan: a nation-wide panel survey PLOS Global Public Health Dear Ochi, Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS Global Public Health. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS Global Public Health’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 27th April 2023. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at globalpubhealth@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pgph/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file. Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:
Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter. We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript. Kind regards, Collins Otieno Asweto, PhD Academic Editor PLOS Global Public Health Journal Requirements: 1. We suggest you thoroughly copyedit your manuscript for language usage, spelling, and grammar. If you do not know anyone who can help you do this, you may wish to consider employing a professional scientific editing service. Whilst you may use any professional scientific editing service of your choice, PLOS has partnered with both American Journal Experts (AJE) and Editage to provide discounted services to PLOS authors. Both organizations have experience helping authors meet PLOS guidelines and can provide language editing, translation, manuscript formatting, and figure formatting to ensure your manuscript meets our submission guidelines. To take advantage of our partnership with AJE, visit the AJE website (http://learn.aje.com/plos/) for a 15% discount off AJE services. To take advantage of our partnership with Editage, visit the Editage website (www.editage.com) and enter referral code PLOSEDIT for a 15% discount off Editage services. If the PLOS editorial team finds any language issues in text that either AJE or Editage has edited, the service provider will re-edit the text for free. Upon resubmission, please provide the following: - The name of the colleague or the details of the professional service that edited your manuscript - A copy of your manuscript showing your changes by either highlighting them or using track changes (uploaded as a *supporting information* file) - A clean copy of the edited manuscript (uploaded as the new *manuscript* file) 2. Please send a completed 'Competing Interests' statement, including any COIs declared by your co-authors. If you have no competing interests to declare, please state "The authors have declared that no competing interests exist". Otherwise please declare all competing interests beginning with the statement "I have read the journal's policy and the authors of this manuscript have the following competing interests:" 3. Please provide a/amend your detailed Financial Disclosure statement. This is published with the article. It must therefore be completed in full sentences and contain the exact wording you wish to be published. a. Please clarify all sources of funding (financial or material support) for your study. List the grants (with grant number) or organizations (with url) that supported your study, including funding received from your institution. b. State the initials, alongside each funding source, of each author to receive each grant. c. State what role the funders took in the study. If the funders had no role in your study, please state: “The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.” 4. Please provide separate figure files in .tif or .eps format. For more information about figure files please see our guidelines: https://journals.plos.org/globalpublichealth/s/figures https://journals.plos.org/globalpublichealth/s/figures#loc-file-requirements 5. We noticed that you used “data not shown”/"unpublished data" in the manuscript. We do not allow these references, as the PLOS data access policy requires that all data be either published with the manuscript or made available in a publicly accessible database. Please amend the supplementary material to include the referenced data or remove the references. 6. Since your data is not available for proprietary reasons, please explain via email why the data is not available. Please also include the contact information for the third party organization that should be contacted should other researchers want to request access to this data and please include the full citation of where the data can be found. We also request that you verify with us via email that any researcher will be able to obtain the data set in the same manner that the you have obtained it. If you feel you are unwilling or unable to adhere to this policy, please explain your reasons by return email and your exemption request will be escalated to the editor for approval. Your exemption request will be handled independently and will not hold up the peer review process, but will need to be resolved should your manuscript be accepted for publication. One of the Editorial team will be in touch if they require more information. 7. We have noticed that you have uploaded Supporting Information files, but you have not included a list of legends. Please add a full list of legends for your Supporting Information files after the references list. 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. Reviewers' comments: Reviewer's Responses to Questions Comments to the Author 1. Does this manuscript meet PLOS Global Public Health’s publication criteria? Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions? The manuscript must describe methodologically and ethically rigorous research with conclusions that are appropriately drawn based on the data presented. Reviewer #1: Partly Reviewer #2: Yes ********** 2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: I don't know Reviewer #2: Yes ********** 3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available (please refer to the Data Availability Statement at the start of the manuscript PDF file)? The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception. The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ********** 4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English? PLOS Global Public Health 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: Interesting and important topic Well justified Methodology is clear Clear table and presentation of data Minor Edits: - Not clear how the COVID-19 pandemic falls under the definition of CBRNE. Perhaps there is no need to put it under this category as it becomes vague and inaccurate. - make it more clear regarding correlation and not causation (use correlation instead of may cause), and add more on that in the limitations section. -Add what further studies are recommended to investigate this correlation/causation further - in the conclusion section. -In discussion : add more on role of possible confounding factors that are missed in this study (e.g. eating habits). Reviewer #2: Thank you very much. I have enjoyed reading the article. It is always great to have numbers to support the personal observations. The methodology is clear with the suitable exclusion criteria, proper analysis and presentation of findings. ********** 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. Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public. 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. |
Revision 1 |
PGPH-D-23-00212R1 Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on exercise habits and overweight status in Japan: a nation-wide panel survey PLOS Global Public Health Dear Sae, Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS Global Public Health. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS Global Public Health’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 ensure that your decision is justified on PLOS Global Public Health’s publication criteria and not, for example, on novelty or perceived impact. Please submit your revised manuscript by 14th June 2023. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at globalpubhealth@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pgph/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file. Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:
Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter. We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript. Kind regards, Collins Otieno Asweto, PhD Academic Editor PLOS Global Public Health Journal Requirements: 1. Please submit a copy edited of your manuscript. 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 (if provided): Reviewers' comments: Reviewer's Responses to Questions Comments to the Author 1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation. Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed Reviewer #3: All comments have been addressed ********** 2. Does this manuscript meet PLOS Global Public Health’s publication criteria? Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions? The manuscript must describe methodologically and ethically rigorous research with conclusions that are appropriately drawn based on the data presented. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #3: Yes ********** 3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #3: Yes ********** 4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available (please refer to the Data Availability Statement at the start of the manuscript PDF file)? The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception. 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 #3: Yes ********** 5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English? PLOS Global Public Health does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here. Reviewer #1: (No Response) Reviewer #3: Yes ********** 6. Review Comments to the Author Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters) Reviewer #1: Comments have been appropriately addressed Reviewer #3: IMPACT OF THE COVID-19 PANDEMIC ON EXERCISE HABITS AND OVERWEIGHT STATUS IN JAPAN: A NATION-WIDE PANEL SURVEY. This research by Sae Ochi et al, aimed to analyse the association of the COVID-19 PANDEMIC with lifestyle factors of exercise habits and overweight status in the Japanese population. The study deployed online nation wide questionnaire which were administered five times between October 2020 and October 2021. The changes were compared between the first questionnaire and the later questionnaire. Analysis of the risk factors for losing exercise habit or becoming overweight were done using multiple regression. The findings suggest that the risks for immobility and overweight are homogeneous. COMMENTS: The authors did a fantastic job by painstakingly looking at the health impacts of Covid 19 on lifestyle changes such as exercise habits and overweight weight status of the Japanese population. The results of this study will surely provide adequate insights on the health impacts of the Covid-19 pandemic. 1. The title is adequate and the abstract gave a good summary of what was done with essential information required. Line 7: under abstract : "compared between the first and later questionnaire": this appear vague, the authors should clarify the term "later questionnaire" specifically for easy reference. 2. Data presented and analyzed in this study were post-covid , a brief background introductory information on the pre-covid lifestyle factors of exercise habits and overweight status among Japanese population would give readers a more robust understanding of the impact of this study. The authors may wish to consider this. 3. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Line 7 : Online questionnaire were conducted five times. Why five times? What was the rationale for this? Were the same questions administered five times on the same or different populations? How was the baseline data determined? Were there pre and post data comparison? Which of these represented the baseline/pre and post data collected? The authors may wish to clarify all these for easy comprehension. 4. DEFINITION OF CHANGES IN THE EARLY AND LATE PHASES Line 3: Reference was made to first, second and fifth questionnaire. Was there a third and fourth questionnaire? If the questionnaires were administered five times, an explanation or reference may be included in the study for third and fourth questionnaire. 5. TARGET POPULATION Line 14 & 15: mentions selection of target population from the database, was there a scientific determination for this selection? How did you arrive at a sample size of 2000 for the study ( line 17). A simple clarification will be fine. 6. STATISTICAL ANALYSIS. The statistical tools of analysis deployed by the authors were in harmony with the data presented and this produced an incisive outlook of the research aims. 7. In addition to some risk factors mentioned, genetics is another major risk factor in being overweight. The authors may wish to list out all the possible risk factors for being overweight but clarify that the focus of this study is on the impact of covid-19 pandemic. 8. The massive work done by these authors are very commendable. This research is unique and interesting with a lot of information that will be added to the body of knowledge. Conclusion: The authors have addressed the concerns raised by the editor and previous reviewer. They may wish to address these fresh concerns I have raised. However, this research is massive and the authors have done a commendable work. ********** 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. Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public. For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy. Reviewer #1: No Reviewer #3: Yes: PRISCILIA UHUANMWEN IMADE ********** [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. |
Revision 2 |
Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on exercise habits and overweight status in Japan: a nation-wide panel survey PGPH-D-23-00212R2 Dear Ochi, We are pleased to inform you that your manuscript 'Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on exercise habits and overweight status in Japan: a nation-wide panel survey' has been provisionally accepted for publication in PLOS Global Public Health. Before your manuscript can be formally accepted you will need to complete some formatting changes, which you will receive in a follow up email. A member of our team will be in touch with a set of requests. Please note that your manuscript will not be scheduled for publication until you have made the required changes, so a swift response is appreciated. IMPORTANT: The editorial review process is now complete. PLOS will only permit corrections to spelling, formatting or significant scientific errors from this point onwards. Requests for major changes, or any which affect the scientific understanding of your work, will cause delays to the publication date of your manuscript. 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 globalpubhealth@plos.org. Thank you again for supporting Open Access publishing; we are looking forward to publishing your work in PLOS Global Public Health. Best regards, Collins Otieno Asweto, PhD Academic Editor PLOS Global Public Health *********************************************************** Reviewer Comments (if any, and for reference): Reviewer's Responses to Questions Comments to the Author 1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation. Reviewer #4: All comments have been addressed Reviewer #5: All comments have been addressed ********** 2. Does this manuscript meet PLOS Global Public Health’s publication criteria? Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions? The manuscript must describe methodologically and ethically rigorous research with conclusions that are appropriately drawn based on the data presented. Reviewer #4: Yes Reviewer #5: Yes ********** 3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #4: Yes Reviewer #5: Yes ********** 4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available (please refer to the Data Availability Statement at the start of the manuscript PDF file)? The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception. 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 #4: Yes Reviewer #5: Yes ********** 5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English? PLOS Global Public Health 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 #4: Yes Reviewer #5: Yes ********** 6. Review Comments to the Author Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters) Reviewer #4: Given the sporadic nature of various disasters, the study provides important information that need to be taken on board as part of disaster preparedness and control. The information was truly presented in an intelligent and coherent manner. The methods were detailed and clear. Results: It is important to format a table 2. As it stands, N could be interpreted as people who also dropped out which is not the case here. Aligning the N and its % is recommended. Ethics consideration: it is important to highlight how ethical issues like confidentiality were handled Reviewer #5: Table 2 on the drop out rates needs further explanation. The rates in percentage appear to be disproportionate to the actual numbers (N) shown. Perhaps a few sentences explaining this Table will be in order ********** 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. Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public. For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy. Reviewer #4: No Reviewer #5: Yes: Lakshmi Narasimhan Balaji ********** |
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 .