PONE-D-19-23969

Circadian typology is related to emotion regulation, metacognitive beliefs and assertiveness in healthy adults

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Antúnez,

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.

I have been able to secure useful feedback from one Reviewer. Please, see the specific comments at the bottom of this letter. I would not repeat these comments here. This evaluation of your manuscript highlights that there were several major concerns with the current version of the study. These concerns could be addressed in a reviewed version of your study.

However, because this may be considered as a major review, please notice that a resubmission will require another round of reviews, hopefully from more that just one Reviewer, and that the final outcome of this process cannot be predicted at this point. If you decide to resubmit, please address each of the concerns that were reaised in the current review.

We would appreciate receiving your revised manuscript by Dec 13 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:

• 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,

Angel Blanch, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

1. 

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

2.  We noticed you have some minor occurrence of overlapping text with the following previous publication(s), which needs to be addressed:

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.3109/07420528.2015.1008700?journalCode=icbi20

In your revision ensure you cite all your sources (including your own works), and quote or rephrase any duplicated text outside the methods section. Further consideration is dependent on these concerns being addressed.

[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: I Don't Know

**********

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: No

**********

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: PONE-D-19-02089

Title: Circadian typology is related to emotion regulation, metacognitive beliefs and

assertiveness in healthy adults

In his manuscript entitled “Circadian typology is related to emotion regulation, metacognitive beliefs and assertiveness in healthy adults”, J.M. Antúnez addresses potential associations between self-reported circadian preference (evening vs. morning types) and several other personality-related traits (as indexed by questionnaire measures), providing partial support for the hypothesis of higher prevalence of dysfunctional beliefs/strategies in individuals reporting a subjective bias toward later circadian phases.

Overall, this is an interesting paper based on a large-sample study with considerable relevance to the field. However, I have several concerns with respect to some methodological issues as well as the interpretations of findings and final conclusions drawn by the author (as outlined in more detail below).

Moreover, throughout the manuscript (starting with the first sentence) there are many instances of awkward language, regarding both non-idiomatic style (i.e., choice of words) and grammatical errors (mostly minor aberrations, such as lack of 3rd person “-s”, e.g., yet sometimes more severe cases, such as incomplete sentences). The text should therefore be thoroughly proofread by a native speaker before final acceptance for publication can be considered.

In a similar vein, use of references styles is not entirely consistent across the manuscript (e.g., full author references on p. 6).

Apart from some problems with grammar and phrasing (see above), both Abstract and Introduction are well-written and clear in stating the present study’s background and main objectives.

The description of the methods is straightforward and clear. (Minor issue: There seems to be a misplaced decimal marker in the description of the internal consistency of the ERQ scales.)

The Results section is also largely consistent. However, it is unclear how exactly post-hoc testing was performed: What do the numbers in brackets indicate (t-values, F-values …)? (Minor issue: There is probably a wrong “>” symbol on p. 10.)

Moreover: How do the results look like when age and sex are not entered as predictors (in ANCOVA or multiple regression, respectively)? Are the differences between evening and morning type still significant? Most importantly: Is the increase in explained variance (incremental variance) by inclusion of the rMEQ scores, as described on pp. 13-14, significant? The author should include this important information and also consider reporting all respective regression weights for each model.

If the finding of an association of circadian typology and other traits depends on statistical control for age and sex (as I am inclined to suspect on the basis of the information provided), this should be highlighted and clearly addressed as a limitation in the Discussion. Also, given that the results are based purely on self-report as well as a correlational design without longitudinal assessment, I would strongly recommend phrasing the conclusions in a much more cautious way, since neither is there direct evidence for the alleged association between psychopathology and circadian typology (discussed as a “risk factor” by the author) nor is there any indication of a direct causal link between circadian typology and emotion regulation (i.e., the design of the study is not at all appropriate for elucidating the direction of causation at all).

Taken together, most of my concerns may be addressed in a thorough revision of the manuscript. Therefore, this could become an interesting and valuable contribution to the literature, given that the manuscript would have been proofread and corrected with respect to grammar and style, the conclusions would be expressed in a more cautious way, and the shortcomings of the study (as described above) would be explicitly addressed.

**********

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.

PONE-D-19-23969R1

Circadian typology is related to emotion regulation, metacognitive beliefs and assertiveness in healthy adults

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Antúnez,

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.

This version of the manuscript has been evaluated by Reviewer #1, who provided initial feedback about your study in the previous round of reviews. In addition, there are additional comments from a new Reviewer (#2). Please, see their comments at the bottom of this letter. As you will see, there is still room for further improving the presentation of your study. Therefore, the manuscript should be reviewed again in accordance with these latter suggestions.  

We would appreciate receiving your revised manuscript by Mar 19 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,

Angel Blanch, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

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

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: (No Response)

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

**********

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

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Partly

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: No

**********

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: After a second, thorough reading I conclude that all of my concerns have been sufficiently addressed and the quality of the paper has improved considerably.

I appreciate the author’s methodological scrutiny in controlling for potential confounding variables. (i.e., age and sex). However, the author should add a sentence or two (e.g., in the Discussion) asserting to the reader that the differences between evening and morning type are still significant even if age and sex are left out of the model.

Minor: Typo “lineal regression” in headings of Tables 4 and 5.

Reviewer #2: The author presents the results of an online study about the link between morningness-eveningness (circadian typology) and adaptive or maladaptive habits in emotion regulation, metacognitive beliefs and assertiveness. I think the manuscript is well suited for publication in PLOSone but still needs some adjustments.

Major aspects:

“Likewise, significant differences were observed between women (14.78 ± 0.15) and men (13.67 ± 0.11) in rMEQ scores (t(1,2281) = 5.89, p < 0.001, Cohen’s d = 0.25).” Does this mean that more women are morning types?

Related to that how does this match with the statements: “Nevertheless, the absence of interactive effect between sex and circadian typology suggests that the circadian typology obtained results are independent of sex.”and “Nevertheless, the non-interaction observed between sex and circadian typology indicates that circadian typology results are independent of sex”

Isn’t the interesting aspect here that morningness-eveningness can contribute to the explanation of emotion regulation, metacognitive beliefs and assertiveness beyond sex as revealed by the regression analysis?

The author writes “Participants distribution according to the morningness- eveningness dimension was skewed toward eveningness, which is in line with previous studies performed with large samples [3,4].” Does this mean that we are facing a representative sample here? Further comparisons might be useful. What about the mentioned usual distribution of 20/60/20 % of morning/indifferent/evening types – is this found within the sample?

When fatigue is discussed I was wondering whether there is any evidence yet that supports this idea, that evening-types suffer from fatigue? If I got the reasoning right that is deduced from social jet-lag theory evening-types (working against their biological clock) that have to adapt to a more morning-oriented social clock should experience greater fatigue which brings up maladaptive cognitive, emotional and behavioral habits. What about other groups of persons or cultures?

Minor aspects:

I think the english language still needs some corrections e.g. “…non-found…”; “…the hypothesis that evening-type participants show(s)…”; “One of them is the lower absence of control of the on-line data collection…”

I was wondering how many participants were excluded due to duplicate answers and how many because they did not meet the inclusion criteria. Also the inclusion/exclusion criteria should be named half a page earlier when the exclusion is mentioned. Does inclusion/exclusion significantly change the results of the present study?

Please explain the score range for the rMEQ. What are the scales?

Decimal separators are inkonsistent in the participants section and in Table 1.

“…and evening-type (27.49 ± 0.30 yrs; p < 0.001), who were older than neither-type (p < 0.001).” I believe it should read younger, if the the numbers are in brackets are means.

The metacognitions sections would be easier to follow when all post-hoc comparisons would follow the description of significance directly.

I think the section regression analysis is not easy to follow linguistically as links are not clear. Also: was the increase from the first to the second model significant?

Table 2 should be ordered the same way as the results section.

Table 4 und 5 are named alike. Aren’t the information in Table 5 subscales of metacognitive beliefs?

Please provide english explanations for the variables in the .sav-file on OSF.

**********

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.

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 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.

Circadian typology is related to emotion regulation, metacognitive beliefs and assertiveness in healthy adults

PONE-D-19-23969R2

Dear Dr. Antúnez,

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,

Angel Blanch, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

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

**********

2. 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

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

4. 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

**********

5. 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

**********

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: (No Response)

**********

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.

Reviewer #1: No