Peer Review History
Original SubmissionJune 21, 2019 |
---|
PONE-D-19-17578 Time trends between 2002 and 2017 in correlates of self-reported sitting time in European adults PLOS ONE Dear Dr Jelsma, 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. A couple of major comments were addressed. Taking them into account would improve the paper. Hoping it will help the authors for the revision. We would appreciate receiving your revised manuscript by Oct 20 2019 11:59PM. When you are 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. If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. To enhance the reproducibility of your results, we recommend that if applicable you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io, where a protocol can be assigned its own identifier (DOI) such that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:
Please note while forming your response, if your article is accepted, you may have the opportunity to make the peer review history publicly available. The record will include editor decision letters (with reviews) and your responses to reviewer comments. If eligible, we will contact you to opt in or out. We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript. Kind regards, Anne Vuillemin Academic Editor PLOS ONE Journal requirements: When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at http://www.journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and http://www.journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf Reviewers' comments: Reviewer's Responses to Questions Comments to the Author 1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions? The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented. Reviewer #1: Yes ********** 2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: Yes ********** 3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available? The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified. Reviewer #1: Yes ********** 4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English? PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here. Reviewer #1: Yes ********** 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: This is a clearly written manuscript examining an interesting research question: what are the time trends (4 measurement points over a 15-year period) in highly sitting and its correlates among adults from 28 European countries. There are some limitations, mainly related to the measures of the outcomes, but the authors address them fairly. I only have a couple of major comments. - It would be informative to the reader to explicitly spell out why both outcomes are important or why you look at both outcomes and not only at ‘high sitting – least active’? - How were time trends evaluated? Explain how ‘time’ is being used in the analyses? - Provide some more explicit information to improve understandability (suggestions below), especially in the discussion. Some suggestions are formulated here to further improve the manuscript and guide the reader better. ABSTRACT: - The authors may want to add a sentence regarding the background of this purpose. For example, briefly explain why these TWO outcomes (instead of looking at high sitting – low activity only) are important to be investigated. - Add information on sample size and some participant characteristics if possible. - Isn’t walking also measured in the IPAQ? Was it included to determine the PA quartiles? Clarify what is being used to determine ‘physical activity’. Does this include the days of walking, MPA and VPA, or only MPA and VPA? - Explain what type of analyses were used to get the odds ratios and explain how ‘time’ is being used (e.g. were the analyses done separately for every year?). - It might be useful to provide a range of the odds ratios in the results section. - The authors might want to end the conclusion with a statement that is based on the current findings. INTRODUCTION: - Last sentence of paragraph 1: add what kind of risks are increased (related to ref 9). - Maybe consider to briefly clarify the use of various terms “sedentary behaviour” and “sitting time”. Are they being used interchangeably here? - It would be informative to the reader to explicitly spell out why both outcomes are important or why you look at both outcomes and not only at ‘high sitting – least active’? - Last paragraph: consider to number the different aims and formulate some hypotheses. METHODS: - Please provide a reference for the statement that the reported number of days in PA items are a good proxy of total PA levels. - Is there information available on income? - Add the number of models that were being tested. Was this 8, two for every survey year? - How were time trends evaluated? Explain how ‘time’ is being used in the analyses? RESULTS: - Sampling: which tests were used to examine for example the increase in higher educated respondents etc? Was this explained in the analyses section? - Sampling: could you also say that there was an increase in the proportion of older respondents? - Sampling: ‘…the mean number of total days OF PA IN THE LAST WEEK in the least active PA quartile…’ the authors might want to add the words in capital. - Table 1: the authors might want to add the number of days to the PA quartile variables. - Table 1: It could be informative to provide the different countries here as well? Is there a reason why this variable is not presented in table 1? - Table 1: it would be informative to provide some more categories of the sitting time variable here. For example, is the majority of the sample sitting between 2-3 hrs, or 5-7.5 hrs daily? - Table 2: Netherlands: there seems to be a big difference in odds ratio between 2002 and 2017. Is this correct? How could this be explained? - Table 2: just a suggestion to place the ‘country (region)’ variable below the country variable at the top of the table. - Prevalence of high sitting time: are these findings statistically being tested? - Prevalence of high sitting time: add the odds ratio (between brackets) for all survey years. Or can these figures be presented in the table? - Prevalence of high sitting time: ‘…we did not observe a difference in 2005’. Compared to when? It is not clear what survey year is being referred to. - Correlates of “high sitting time”: It is not clear about what year the results are. Do you consider “consistently” as when the results are the same over the 4 survey years? Please explain a bit better to the reader. - Correlates of “high sitting time”: suggestion to always add “compared to xxx” when reporting the results of the logistic regression analyses. - Correlates of “high sitting time”: suggestion to guide the reader better by providing some odds ratios in the text as well. - Correlates of “high sitting time”: was there a trend toward significance for widowed individuals to have higher odds compared to singles? - Correlates of “high sitting time and least-active”: suggestion to always add “compared to xxx” when reporting the results of the logistic regression analyses. DISCUSSION: - First sentence: consider to add ‘HIGH LEVELS OF’ before ‘sitting time’. Idem for the first sentence of the second paragraph. - First paragraph: even though this concerns the discussion section, it would be good to provide some figures to guide the reader better. Idem for the paragraph starting with ‘The strongest associations were found for current occupation…’ - Second paragraph: the authors might want to add some country results here as well. Or make comparisons with other continents, if possible? - Can the authors elaborate more on screen-based sitting and recent technologies that might have changed over the last 15 years, affecting leisure time sitting? Do the authors have any hypotheses on how this might have affected the current findings? - Referring to a Dutch study (ref 30): is there information available from other European countries as well? The Netherlands seems to be a bit atypical in terms of sitting time levels compared to the other countries. - Section regarding ‘clear thresholds such as those available for PA’: do the authors suggest having public health guidelines for sitting time? Can the authors reflect on this and maybe address existing literature regarding this matter, for example Stamatakis et al, Br J Sports Med 2019? - Last paragraph: please provide a reference for the first sentence (majority of SB interventions have targeted high educated, white-collar workers). STRENGTHS AND LIMITATIONS: - Please expand explicitly on the impactions of not being able to calculate time spent in PA in relation to public health guidelines. How could this have affected the current results? - Idem for the sitting item, explicitly say what this means for the prevalence of high sitting. - Do the authors have specific domain-specific measurements of sitting time in mind or would they recommend specific ones? ********** 6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files. If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public. Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy. Reviewer #1: No [NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files to be viewed.] 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 us at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step. |
Revision 1 |
Time trends between 2002 and 2017 in correlates of self-reported sitting time in European adults PONE-D-19-17578R1 Dear Dr. Jelsma, We are pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it complies with all outstanding technical requirements. Within one week, you will receive an e-mail containing information on the amendments required prior to publication. When all required modifications have been addressed, you will receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will proceed to our production department and be scheduled for publication. Shortly after the formal acceptance letter is sent, an invoice for payment will follow. To ensure an efficient production and billing process, please log into Editorial Manager at https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the "Update My Information" link at the top of the page, and update your user information. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org. If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to enable them to help maximize its impact. If they will be preparing press materials for this manuscript, you must inform our press team as soon as possible and no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org. With kind regards, Anne Vuillemin Academic Editor PLOS ONE |
Formally Accepted |
PONE-D-19-17578R1 Time trends between 2002 and 2017 in correlates of self-reported sitting time in European adults Dear Dr. Jelsma: I am 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. If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper at this point, to enable them to help maximize its impact. If they will be preparing press materials for this manuscript, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org. For any other questions or concerns, please email plosone@plos.org. Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE. With kind regards, PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff on behalf of Dr. Anne Vuillemin Academic Editor PLOS ONE |
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 .