Peer Review History

Original SubmissionOctober 28, 2019
Decision Letter - Anne Vuillemin, Editor

PONE-D-19-30067

Understanding the contribution of public- and restricted-access places to overall and domain-specific physical activity among Mexican adults: A cross-sectional study.

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Jáuregui,

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.

We would appreciate receiving your revised manuscript by Feb 20 2020 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:

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). This letter should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.
  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. This file should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.
  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. This file should be uploaded as separate file and labeled '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.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

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

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

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: The manuscript is well-written, very concise and informative for providing evidence to inform the design of public strategies. There are some minor comments and observations for the paper. The discussion is very well-developed and it is easy to follow. This section adds relevant and contextual information about the implications of these findings.

Introduction.

L77. In the paper is mentioned that a limitation of current studies is that they only included one city from each studied country… could you provide in methods (maybe in the discussion too) briefly more details about the included cities in the study. It could be relevant for international readers.

Methods.

L110. Please check the reference, as the criterion validity was not tested in Brazil. Also, in general, the paper describes that reliability was moderate and validity poor to fair in other countries.

L114. Add at the end of the sentence in the parenthesis… “per week of MVPA).”

Statistical analysis. In the abstract, you mentioned the analytical method used in this paper, but it was not mentioned in this section.

Results

How did you evaluate implausible or inconsistent results? (you may add details in methods).

L181. For international comparability, you may use the term university instead of college as in some countries that refer to high school.

L213. minor detail. use PA instead of physical activity.

L225. minor detail. add % after 29 to be consistent.

Discussion

In the discussion, please describe the implications of having a more educated sample in this study compared with the Mexican population. You may add some examples or hypothesise something. I know you highlight this in the limitations (L347).

Tables and figures

I may include the supplementary tables in the paper as you described them in the results. It would be very useful to see the sex differences in the full version of the manuscript, for example.

**********

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

Reviewer #1: The manuscript is well-written, very concise and informative for providing evidence to inform the design of public strategies. There are some minor comments and observations for the paper. The discussion is very well-developed and it is easy to follow. This section adds relevant and contextual information about the implications of these findings.

Introduction.

L77. In the paper is mentioned that a limitation of current studies is that they only included one city from each studied country… could you provide in methods (maybe in the discussion too) briefly more details about the included cities in the study. It could be relevant for international readers.

Response: Thank you for your suggestion. We have now detailed the cities included in each of the three countries in the introduction and in the discussion sections (L77-78 and L272-274).

Methods.

L110. Please check the reference, as the criterion validity was not tested in Brazil. Also, in general, the paper describes that reliability was moderate and validity poor to fair in other countries.

Response: We thank the reviewer for pointing out this mistake. We have now included addittional references reporting on the criterion validity of GPAQ among Latinamerican populations and corrected the sentence reporting the validity of the GPAQ to reflect that this instrument has poor to fair validity (L112-113) .

L114. Add at the end of the sentence in the parenthesis… “per week of MVPA).”

Response: Done

Statistical analysis. In the abstract, you mentioned the analytical method used in this paper, but it was not mentioned in this section.

Response: We thank the reviewer for identifying this omission. We have now included in this section the type of models used (i.e. multivariate logistic regression models) (L163).

Results

How did you evaluate implausible or inconsistent results? (you may add details in methods).

Response: Implausible and inconsistent PA data was evaluated according to the GPAQ protocol. We have now included additional information and examples of how this was achieved in the “Physical activity measures” section (L114-116).

L181. For international comparability, you may use the term university instead of college as in some countries that refer to high school.

Response: Done

L213. minor detail. use PA instead of physical activity.

Response: Corrected

L225. minor detail. add % after 29 to be consistent.

Response: Corrected

Discussion

In the discussion, please describe the implications of having a more educated sample in this study compared with the Mexican population. You may add some examples or hypothesise something. I know you highlight this in the limitations (L347).

Response: Wee thank the reviewer for the suggestion. We have now included additional information relating the implications of having a more educated sample in the study compared with the Mexican popualtion (L287-290).

Tables and figures

I may include the supplementary tables in the paper as you described them in the results. It would be very useful to see the sex differences in the full version of the manuscript, for example.

Response: We thank the reviewer for the suggestion. We have now included an additional figure showing differences by demographic characteristics (i.e. sex, education and income adequacy) (see Figure 2, L218-220). We decided to keep supplementary tables (i.e. S1, S2 and S3 Table) because they provide additional information which may be useful for readers (L210-211).

Attachments
Attachment
Submitted filename: Reviewer comments 1 PONE.docx
Decision Letter - Anne Vuillemin, Editor

Understanding the contribution of public- and restricted-access places to overall and domain-specific physical activity among Mexican adults: A cross-sectional study.

PONE-D-19-30067R1

Dear Dr. Jáuregui,

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

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Formally Accepted
Acceptance Letter - Anne Vuillemin, Editor

PONE-D-19-30067R1

Understanding the contribution of public- and restricted-access places to overall and domain-specific physical activity among Mexican adults: A cross-sectional study.

Dear Dr. Jáuregui:

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 .