PONE-D-21-03620

Contextualizing goal preferences in fear-avoidance models. Looking at fatigue as a disabling symptom in fibromyalgia patients.

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Peñacoba,

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 would welcome the submission of a revised manuscript that addresses the major and minor concerns raised in this review. As we explain to all authors, whenever there is a major revision, there is the chance that the new information may reveal fatal flaws that cannot be fixed and that your revised version will not be accepted. We will make every effort to send the revised paper to the same reviewers.

Thank you for considering our Journal. We look forward to seeing this paper again in revised form.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Jun 07 2021 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 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 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). 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'.

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.

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: http://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.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Juan V. Luciano, Ph.D.

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

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. In your Data Availability statement, you have indicated the following data availability statement ("All relevant data are within the manuscript and its Supporting Information files."), but no such data is available in the submission. PLOS defines a study's minimal data set as the underlying data used to reach the conclusions drawn in the manuscript and any additional data required to replicate the reported study findings in their entirety. All PLOS journals require that the minimal data set be made fully available. For more information about our data policy, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability.

Upon re-submitting your revised manuscript, please upload your study’s minimal underlying data set as either Supporting Information files or to a stable, public repository and include the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers within your revised cover letter. For a list of acceptable repositories, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-recommended-repositories. Any potentially identifying patient information must be fully anonymized.

Important: If there are ethical or legal restrictions to sharing your data publicly, please explain these restrictions in detail. Please see our guidelines for more information on what we consider unacceptable restrictions to publicly sharing data: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-unacceptable-data-access-restrictions. Note that it is not acceptable for the authors to be the sole named individuals responsible for ensuring data access.

We will update your Data Availability statement to reflect the information you provide in your cover letter.

3. We note that the grant information you provided in the ‘Funding Information’ and ‘Financial Disclosure’ sections do not match.

When you resubmit, please ensure that you provide the correct grant numbers for the awards you received for your study in the ‘Funding Information’ section.

4. Your ethics statement should only appear in the Methods section of your manuscript. If your ethics statement is written in any section besides the Methods, please move it to the Methods section and delete it from any other section. Please ensure that your ethics statement is included in your manuscript, as the ethics statement entered into the online submission form will not be published alongside your manuscript.

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

https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.01912/full

The text that needs to be addressed is within your results section.

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

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: 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

Reviewer #2: 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

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: Authors have written a very clear, valuable and extensive paper. I congratulate them on this piece of work. I have minor comments for the authors to consider.

Pg 8

Ln177: You stated that participants were recruited from different patients’ associations and that mean time since establishing FM diagnosis was 12.14±8.45 years. It is possible, therefore, that certain patients did not fulfill criteria for FM diagnosis at the moment of testing. Please explain how this fact could have influenced your results and consider adding this in limitation section if necessary.

Pg 13

Ln298: Did you perform CFA on the same sample as for the EFA? Please, explain.

Pg15

Ln340: When you report decimal values, sometimes you omit the zero and sometimes you do not. For example “.9” vs “0.9”.

Please revise and be consistent when reporting these values.

Reviewer #2: The objective of the study is interesting from a scientific point of view and is well planned and executed with the chosen methodology. Investigate the knowledge about the relationship between hedonic goals (fatigue-avoidance and mood-management goals) and fatigue, pain and impact of fybromialgia, focusing in fatigue is very interesting, not only from the point of view of reinforcing knowledge about it. condition, but also very interesting from a clinical point of view.

Minor style issues:

To try to reduce space, a common Figure could be made to explain both the “Tested structural model with activity avoidance pattern” and the “Tested structural model with task contingent persistence pattern”. Or results Tables (Figure 4a to 4f)

Figure 2 and 3 appear in text (322) before Figure 1 (378). Figure 1 is not named in text.

Also, Table 2 appears before in text (338) that Table 1 (354)

Despite being an adaptation of the accepted and validated previous questionnaire (GPQ), due to characteristics of the sample, the items are very associated to sociodemographics variables of these sample. Probably no near of reality of all fybromialgya population (mean = 56.9); majority with partner; low studies level; 32 retired (cause of fybromyalgia, probably and also age).

This sample is not so much heterogeneous within the fybromyalgia condition, leading to the construction of a questionnaire that is difficult to understand, apply, and even justify for other profiles of women with fibromyalgia. Activities limited to (clean of house, clean Windows, shopping, sewing ..).

Maybe to see the complete questionnaire could help to review how it finally looks for its application to users.

It is possible that from a statistical point of view the questionnaire is correct, however, from a broader perspective, the questionnaire could be debatable for women as a gender and might not be appropriate from a political correctness point of view.

Maybe the selection of the sample could have been carried out in primary or specialized health face, to try to collect a representative sample (more initial stages of women with fibromyalgia, active at work, with a different sociocultural profile ..)

**********

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

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.

Contextualizing goal preferences in fear-avoidance models. Looking at fatigue as a disabling symptom in fibromyalgia patients.

PONE-D-21-03620R1

Dear Dr. Peñacoba,

We’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.

An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at 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.

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 onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Juan V. Luciano, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Dear Dr. Peñacoba:

Thank you for submitting your revised manuscript to Plos One. I have now completed my review, and I am pleased to be able to accept your manuscript in its current form.

I sincerely believe that you have done a thorough job in trying to address the issues raised by both reviewers with regards to your initial submission. After my own reading, no further elaboration and/or commenting seems necessary.

Congratulations for you hard work along the review process.

Sincerely,

Dr. Luciano

Reviewers' comments: