PONE-D-21-39680Use of autobiographical stimuli as a mood manipulation procedure: Systematic Mapping ReviewPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Toledano-González,

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.

 Please submit your revised manuscript by Apr 03 2022 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: https://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,

César Leal-Costa, 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. Thank you for stating the following financial disclosure:

“The authors received funding from the European Regional Development Funds (FEDER) [2018/11744] [2019/7375] [2020/3771].

This work was supported by the Castilla-La Mancha Department of Education, Culture and Sports and the European Regional Development Fund under SPBLY/19/180501/000181 grant and the Spanish Ministry of Science, Innovation and Universities under PID2019-103956RB-I00 grant.”

Please state what role the funders took in the study.  If the funders had no role, please state: "The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript."

If this statement is not correct you must amend it as needed.

Please include this amended Role of Funder statement in your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf.

3. We note that you have stated that you will provide repository information for your data at acceptance. Should your manuscript be accepted for publication, we will hold it until you provide the relevant accession numbers or DOIs necessary to access your data. If you wish to make changes to your Data Availability statement, please describe these changes in your cover letter and we will update your Data Availability statement to reflect the information you provide.

4. We note that this manuscript is a systematic review or meta-analysis; our author guidelines therefore require that you use PRISMA guidance to help improve reporting quality of this type of study. Please upload copies of the completed PRISMA checklist as Supporting Information with a file name “PRISMA checklist”.

5. Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice.

[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: N/A

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: Please, include script file. This information will help readers to understand the process of your study.

Please, add this reference:

Jordan, Zoe PhD; Lockwood, Craig PhD; Munn, Zachary PhD; Aromataris, Edoardo PhD The updated Joanna Briggs Institute Model of Evidence-Based Healthcare, International Journal of Evidence-Based Healthcare: March 2019 - Volume 17 - Issue 1 - p 58-71 doi: 10.1097/XEB.0000000000000155

please improve tool description

Pubmed is not a database. PubMed is a free search engine accessing primarily the MEDLINE database

Could you add a wordcloud (or tag cloud)?

Reviewer #2: This manuscript addresses an interesting and important issue in psychological research: Use of autobiographical stimuli as a mood manipulation procedure. The literature can benefit from studies that clarify the mood induction procedures.

My comments are organized according to the sections of the paper, with the most important issues in each section addressed first. The following are some concerns and recommendations for strengthening this paper.

Abstract: It would be useful to include a broad description of the conclusions in the abstract.

Keywords. “Autobiographical” keyword is redundant with the title. Perhaps, authors could include another keyword

Introduction

The introduction should include some aspect that describes why interest in the study of use of autobiographical stimuli as a mood manipulation procedure has increased (or the benefits of its increase) and what gaps this review intends to cover.

Materials & Methods

Authors follow a systematic mapping review approach. It would be rigorous to include some reference that justifies its suitability for the objectives set forth in this work.

Although one of the inclusion criteria is " Articles not published in English " it would be useful to include Spanish written articles since the reviewers are from Spain

Authors state on page 6 that “Two researchers independently reviewed and filtered all 3296 articles, reading and analysing the titles, abstract and keywords and following the inclusion and exclusion criteria. When the two researchers were unable to agree, a third researcher independently resolved the conflict.”

Nevertheless authors state on page 7 that “Data extraction was carried out by two researchers (DFP and ATG). Any discrepancies were resolved by two independent researchers (JML and LR).”

Are one or two researchers resolving the conflicts?

Results

Authors state on page 10 that “Of these journals, 26.6% belong to the category of neurosciences (24 articles), 21.9% to the category of experimental psychology (49 articles) and 12.5% can be considered multidisciplinary psychology journals (13 articles). Other categories include social psychology (9.4%), behavioural sciences (7.8%), clinical psychology (6.2%), developmental psychology (3.1%), multidisciplinary sciences (3.1%), geriatrics and gerontology (3.1%), medicine and experimental research (3.1%), psychiatry (1.6%) and computer graphics (1.6%).”

What criteria was used? How do authors choose if a journal belongs to several categories?

Discussion

Authors state on page19 that “To mitigate this, we conducted the search using three recognised databases”.

Nevertheless they have analysed four recognised databases (Scopus, Pubmed, PsycINFO and Web of Science).

Have the analysed three or four databases?

Bibliography

Please include the Journal name abbreviation (Adv Exp Soc Psychol) in the following reference:

Sedikides C, Wildschut T, Routledge C, Arndt J, Hepper EG, Zhou X. To nostalgize: Mixing memory with affect and desire. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology. 2015. 189–273. doi:10.1016/bs.aesp.2014.10.001

Although it is Optional, It would be nice if you translate the article title (MEDLINE/PubMed practice) in your non English referece:

Ricarte JJ, Latorre JM, Ros L. Diseño y análisis del funcionamiento del Test de Memoria Autobiográfica en población española. Apunt Psicol. 2013;31:3–10.

Figures

The PRISMA Diagram could be improved by indicating the reasons ( and the number) that are excluded at each step

Supplementary material

I wonder if English names for the S1 and S3 files attached as supplementary materials would be more appropriate than Spanish names.

Material suplementario S1.docx

Material suplementario S3.docx

Recommendation: accept with minor changes, because despite these limitations, few previous studies have explored the autobiographical stimuli as a mood manipulation procedure.

**********

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.

PONE-D-21-39680R1Use of autobiographical stimuli as a mood manipulation procedure: Systematic Mapping ReviewPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Toledano-González,

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.

One of the reviewers has made minor comments.  Please respond to his comments that he has put in the attached document.  After that review I will make the final decision.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Jun 15 2022 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: https://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,

César Leal-Costa, Ph. D

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice.

[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: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #2: 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

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #1: N/A

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: 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: This is an interesting study that the authors exploring the Use of autobiographical stimuli as a mood manipulation procedure. This is a relevant and interesting article, I suggest its publications.

Reviewer #2: This manuscript addresses an interesting and important issue in psychological research: Use of autobiographical stimuli as a mood manipulation procedure. The authors have adequately addressed the comments and concerns I raised in my initial review. The manuscript has been significantly improved and now warrants publication Plos One:

a.- Authors have expanded the Conclusions section of the abstract to include what they see primary findings of the study

b.- Authors have changed “Autobiographical” by “personal memories” in the keywords section

c.- The revised manuscript’s Introduction highlights the importance of the interest in the study of autobiographical stimulus as a mood induction procedure

d.- Manuscript has included a reference that justifies the use of a systematic mapping review

e.- Authors now state that the classifications used by category of the journals that contained publications included in their article were extracted directly from Web of Sciences (Clarivate) under "Journal Information" and "JCR Category".

f.- Manuscript includes that final articles were extracted from 4 recognized databases (Scopus, Pubmed (MEDLINE), PsycINFO and Web of Sciences).

Recommendation: I think that from a qualitative viewpoint, the manuscript is ready for publication. I congratulate the authors on this useful contribution to the literature focusing on mood manipulation procedure.

**********

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.]

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: Review_20220430.docx

Use of autobiographical stimuli as a mood manipulation procedure: Systematic Mapping Review

PONE-D-21-39680R2

Dear Dr. Toledano-González,

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,

César Leal-Costa, Ph. D

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments: