Peer Review History

Original SubmissionMarch 31, 2021
Decision Letter - Celestino Rodríguez, Editor

PONE-D-21-09225

Behaviours involved in the role of victim and aggressor in bullying: relationship with physical fitness in adolescents.

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Benítez-Sillero,

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 reviewed your manuscript carfully  to determine suitability for publication based on a combination of factors, including whether the topic is well suited to the aims and scope of the journal, methodological considerations, and whether the findings make a sufficient contribution to the existing literature. Based on my proper review and external reviewers, your paper could be considered further for publication with major revisión.

One of ther reviewer explain some concerns that should be attended:

1- Complete two additional tests analysis: Multiple stepwise regression analysis, with the aim of identifying the most related component of physical condition with dependent variables.

One-way ANOVA to analyze whether there are differences in physical condition between subjects with differential points in victimisation and aggression in bullying

2- Rewrite their Introduction and Discussion. previous studies have analyzed the object of study of this manuscript, please consider it necessary to include quantitative results of these studies in the introduction section.

==============================

Please submit your revised manuscript by Aug 21 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,

Celestino Rodríguez, PhD

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. Please improve statistical reporting and refer to p-values as "p<.001" instead of "p=.000". Our statistical reporting guidelines are available at https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-statistical-reporting.

3. Thank you for stating the following in the Acknowledgments Section of your manuscript:

“This project was funded by the Directorate General for Innovation and Teacher Training of the Counseling of Education of Andalusia (PIV-021/20) as an educational research project to be implemented in 2020.”

We note that you have provided additional information within the Acknowledgements Section that is not currently declared in your Funding Statement. Please note that funding information should not appear in the Acknowledgments section or other areas of your manuscript. We will only publish funding information present in the Funding Statement section of the online submission form.

Please remove any funding-related text from the manuscript and let us know how you would like to update your Funding Statement. Currently, your Funding Statement reads as follows:

“This project was funded by the Directorate General for Innovation and Teacher Training of the Counseling of Education of Andalusia (PIV-021/20) as an educational research project to be implemented in 2020.”

Please include your amended statements within your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf.

4. 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)”

[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: Partly

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #1: No

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: No

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: 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: Dear Authors,

Priorities I congratulate the authors for their ideas and efforts. The time they spend working is very valuable. In the attached document I provide you with a series of comments about the manuscript.

Best regards.

Reviewer #2: The article is well supported theoretically and the references are current and related to the objective of the research.

As aspects of improvement, the following are recommended:

- It would be interesting to have more data regarding the sample and the data collection procedure. Has any participant had to be ruled out for medical reasons? Have you ever wondered if the participants have any pathology that could interfere with their performance?

- There is no data on how the fitness tests were carried out in the sample (if, for example, it was part of the physical education class or if the measurements were made in the same time slot)

- Finally, indicate that the writing of the manuscript should be revised to improve its reading: the theoretical introduction presents short sentences that can be joined (for example, line 77, line 250 R2 should be corrected)

**********

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.

Attachments
Attachment
Submitted filename: Comments.docx
Revision 1

Juan de Dios Benítez Sillero

Behaviours involved in the role of victim and aggressor in bullying: relationship with physical fitness in adolescents.

Dear Editor I enclose the letter of response to the reviewers, as well as some comments from the editor. For ease of interpretation, we have put the authors' comments in red. I hope I have solved the problems of the article and carried out a satisfactory process based on the reviewers' suggestions.

Reviewers’ comments:

As major revision I make three considerations

Reviewers’ comments: The methodology applied to respond to the objectives is correct, however, from my point of view, additional statistical analyzes are required for a better response. Why do the authors perform a Spearman correlation? In abstract section authors indicate Pearson Correlation.

Authors’ comments: Thank you very much for the correction, it has been corrected, indicating in the abstract that it is Spearman's correlation.

Reviewers’ comments: Furthermore, I propose to the authors to carry out two additional tests: Multiple stepwise regression analysis, with the aim of identifying the most related component of physical condition with dependent variables.

Authors’ comments: Thanks for the proposal, this analysis has been carried out and added to table 6. Likewise, this same analysis has been written in the results with the 3 strength tests in a differentiated way as we did not know whether it was this analysis that the reviewer was referring to or the one we have added to table 6.

Reviewers’ comments: One-way ANOVA to analyze whether there are differences in physical condition between subjects with differential points in victimisation and aggression in bullying.

Authors’ comments: In the early years of the study of bullying, the questionnaires were analysed by transforming the subjects according to the role they assumed in bullying (victimizer, aggressor, aggressor-victimized...). Later, with the development of scales with greater psychometric properties, such as the one used in the study, victimization and aggression began to be studied quantitatively, as we have done in this study. For this reason, we have not divided the subjects into roles. Therefore, as we worked with quantitative data and not in groups of e.g. victims and bullies, we worked with such an analysis and could not work with the continuous dimensions in the One-way ANOVA.

Reviewers’ comments: Second, while the study appears to be sound, however, the authors should rewrite their Introduction and Discussion. Introduction: Since previous studies have analyzed the object of study of this manuscript, I consider it necessary to include quantitative results of these studies in the introduction section.

Authors’ comments: Thank you very much for your appreciation, we have added information on the quantitative results of the studies most closely related to ours.

Reviewers’ comments: Third: what is the difference with Garcia-Hermoso A, Oriol-Granado X, Correa-Bautista JE, Ramírez-Vélez R. Association between bullying victimization and physical fitness among children and adolescents. Int J Clin Health Psychol. 2019 May;19(2):134-140. doi: 10.1016/j.ijchp.2019.02.006. Epub 2019 Apr 17. PMID: 31193131; PMCID: PMC6517651.

Authors’ comments: This study cited by the reviewer is a breakthrough in the study of the subject. The main differences with respect to ours is that we analyse not only victimisation in bullying but also aggressiveness. In addition, a greater number of muscle strength tests are carried out, in this study only manual dynamometry is used, while we also use the horizontal jump and the 30-second sit-up test. The analysis we carried out in our study is quantitative and therefore provides more information, whereas in the study of our colleagues we carried out a role-based analysis. Likewise, our study delves into the analysis of the behaviours of victimisation and aggression in the ordinal regression analysis.

Reviewers’ comments: The authors should revise the language to improve readability.

As minor revisions

First paragraph, no relationship between first and second sentence is shown.

Line 24: delete "n"

Line 31: Pearson or Spearmar?

Line 36-40: Conclusions: review subsequent comment regarding conclusions

Line 47: delete “,”

Line 80-83: Can authors justify this argument with a reference?

Line 93: delete " [".

Line 100: “…these focusing on the role of the victim and concluding that good physical fitness may…” ¿Good or high physical fitness? At this point, it would be interesting for readers that authors reported more information.

Line 105-107: Idem, provide more specific contents

Authors’ comments: This information has been added to correct the previous minor changes.

Reviewers’ comments:

Line 118-124: The authors say that: “…descriptive study involved 1035 schoolchildren aged 12 to 19 years…” However, later it is indicated that they are second year of baccalaureate and that those over 17 years were excluded. Clarify

Authors’ comments: Thank you very much for the detailed review, these issues have been corrected.

Reviewers’ comments: Materials and methods section.

I propose to the authors a modification of the distribution of this section for a better understanding. Include a section on design or experimental design. Below is the description of the participants and later the procedure and statistical analysis.

Line 150: Why did the authors carry out the analysis of body composition with Tanita? What was the protocol used for a correct measurement using es? Where are the results provided?

Authors’ comments: The Tanita scale was used to measure the weight of the subjects but for logistical reasons it was not possible to carry out the analysis of body composition.

Reviewers comments: Line 153: m2

Line 155: substitute “training” for “familiarization”.

Line 156: Three?

Line 188: The authors use Course Navette and Multistage Shuttle Run Test interchangeably, taking into account the original reference to use Multistage Shuttle Run Test. In addition, this test estimate the cardiorespiratory fitness or aerobic fitness not cardiovascular endurance

Line 210-211 I agree with the authors: Given the cross-sectional nature of this study, this prediction can only be interpreted on a theoretical basis and no causal relationship can be established. Therefore, the conclusions have to be reformulated.

Authors’ comments: Thank you very much for the detailed review, the issues have been corrected.

Reviewers’ comments: Results section.

Table 2: I propose to align the content to the left. Replace “,” for “.” to indicate decimals. Indicate the units in all variables

Table 3: Idem

Authors’ comments: Thank you very much for the detailed review, the issues have been corrected.

Reviewers’ comments: Line 239: ¿ weight or BMI?

Authors’ comments: It has been corrected by putting BMI.

Reviewers’ comments: Table 4: Indicate the units in all variables. Confidence intervals can be given in Table 4

Authors’ comments: Thank you very much for the suggestion, it has been added.

Reviewers’ comments: Line 248-250: Can the authors confirm that this sentence is correct?

Authors’ comments: Yes, it is correct it refers to the outcome of the complete victimisation model and the aggression model.

Reviewers’ comments: Line 252: “… being higher in boys…” How much?

Authors’ comments: This is shown in table 5 with β=.084 and t=2.201. If necessary it can be rewritten in the results but I think it is excessive if it is shown in the table.

Reviewers’ comments: Line 252: Is correct to age?

Authors’ comments: Thank you very much for your appreciation it has been deleted.

Reviewers’ comments: In Tables 6 and 7 the authors report the ordinary regression for some questions. Did the rest of the questions show no relationship? This is important for the correct writing of the conclusions and results.

Authors’ comments: This issue has been clarified in conjunction with the following commentary by rewriting these paragraphs.

Reviewers’ comments: Line 257-258: In this paragraph, results of table 6 are presented. The results are not related to the table results. Authors can rewrite this paragraph for better understanding. Also, it is not necessary to duplicate the results (text and table)

Authors’ comments: This issue has been clarified in conjunction with the above commentary by rewriting these paragraphs.

Reviewers’ comments: Discussion section.

The discussion section has to be rewritten. The authors abuse a chaining of paragraphs of results without arguing the same. The structure “In relation to...” is reiterative. It is necessary to discuss providing data from previous studies and comparing with those of this research, not just describing.

Authors’ comments: Thank you very much for your suggestions, the discussion has been rewritten with the authors' suggestions in mind.

Reviewers’ comments: Conclusion

Do the results support the conclusions? The authors have to rewrite the conclusions, contributing only those that correspond to the results obtained. Furthermore, a correlation is not a cause-effect relationship, so it must be rewritten.

Authors’ comments: Thank you very much for the correction, this paragraph has been rewritten.

Reviewers’ comments: Is the study free of limitations?

Authors’ comments: This information has been completed in the relevant section.

Reviewers’ comments: - It would be interesting to have more data regarding the sample and the data collection procedure. Has any participant had to be ruled out for medical reasons? Have you ever wondered if the participants have any pathology that could interfere with their performance?

Authors’ comments: This information has been added.

Reviewers’ comments: - There is no data on how the fitness tests were carried out in the sample (if, for example, it was part of the physical education class or if the measurements were made in the same time slot)

Authors’ comments: This information has been added.

Reviewers’ comments: - Finally, indicate that the writing of the manuscript should be revised to improve its reading: the theoretical introduction presents short sentences that can be joined (for example, line 77, line 250 R2 should be corrected)

Authors’ comments: Thank you very much for your comments and the suggestions have been corrected.

Editor comments: 3. Thank you for stating the following in the Acknowledgments Section of your manuscript:

“This project was funded by the Directorate General for Innovation and Teacher Training of the Counseling of Education of Andalusia (PIV-021/20) as an educational research project to be implemented in 2020.”

We note that you have provided additional information within the Acknowledgements Section that is not currently declared in your Funding Statement. Please note that funding information should not appear in the Acknowledgments section or other areas of your manuscript. We will only publish funding information present in the Funding Statement section of the online submission form.

Please remove any funding-related text from the manuscript and let us know how you would like to update your Funding Statement. Currently, your Funding Statement reads as follows:

Authors’ comments: We have deleted the information in the text.

“This project was funded by the Directorate General for Innovation and Teacher Training of the Counseling of Education of Andalusia (PIV-021/20) as an educational research project to be implemented in 2020.”

Please include your amended statements within your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf.

Authors’ comments: This is how it should appear in the relevant section.

“This project was funded by the Directorate General for Innovation and Teacher Training of the Counseling of Education of Andalusia (PIV-021/20) as an educational research project to be implemented in 2020.”

4. 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.

The name of the colleague or the details of the professional service that edited your manuscript

Authors’ comments: The professional person who has been in charge of reviewing the article in English is: Inmaculada C. Martí Garrido. Qualification: Degree in English Philology. Company: Educo Center Córdoba

I hope our work is satisfactory and we thank the editor and reviewers for their hard work in reviewing it.

Best regards

Juan de Dios Benítez Sillero

Universidad de Córdoba

Attachments
Attachment
Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx
Decision Letter - Celestino Rodríguez, Editor

Behaviours involved in the role of victim and aggressor in bullying: relationship with physical fitness in adolescents.

PONE-D-21-09225R1

Dear Dr. Benítez-Sillero,

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,

Celestino Rodríguez, PhD

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Formally Accepted
Acceptance Letter - Celestino Rodríguez, Editor

PONE-D-21-09225R1

Behaviours involved in the role of victim and aggressor in bullying: relationship with physical fitness in adolescents.

Dear Dr. Benítez- Sillero:

I'm 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 let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, 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.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at plosone@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. Celestino Rodríguez

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 .