The Berlin Misophonia Questionnaire Revised (BMQ-R): Development and validation of a symptom-oriented diagnostical instrument for the measurement of misophonia

Nico Remmert; Katharina Maria Beate Schmidt; Patrick Mussel; Minne Luise Hagel; Michael Eid

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0269428

Peer Review History

Original SubmissionAugust 5, 2021
14 Mar 2022 Decision Letter - Sónia Brito-Costa, Editor PONE-D-21-25396 The Berlin Misophonia Questionnaire (BMQ): Development and validation of a symptom-oriented diagnostical instrument for the measurement of misophonia PLOS ONE Dear Dr. Remmert, 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 28 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, Sonia Brito-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. Please note that in order to use the direct billing option the corresponding author must be affiliated with the chosen institute. Please either amend your manuscript to change the affiliation or corresponding author, or email us at plosone@plos.org with a request to remove this option. [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 ******** 2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: N/A ****** 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: I think this paper is very significant and contemporary and the paper includes important aspects. But there are many shortfalls and I do believe this paper needs major correction and almost all of the sub-headings need to rewrite and some sub-heading should be added. Length: The total length of the article is roughly 70 pages. Although there is no explicit requirement concerning the length of an article, in general, there is an implicit assumption that a length shorter than 6,000 words shall render it difficult to offer a substantial argumentation of the claims raised in an article. The optimal length of an English academic paper is roughly 8,000 words. Indeed, this is simply a general, impressionistic statement which approximates a general guideline to authors. It by no means requires that the author should follow it strictly. Length, by the same token, is not equal to quality. Nevertheless, in the case of this article, a considerably shorter length has apparently done less harm than good, where the author can develop his points in full to the due level of sophistication and clarity – an issue to be backed up by evidences articulated thereafter in this decision report. ****** 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: Yes:** Taha Husain [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. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0269428.r001
Revision 1
28 Apr 2022 Author Response Dear Dr. Brito-Costa, Thank you for giving us the opportunity to submit a revised version of our manuscript “The Berlin Misophonia Questionnaire Revised (BMQ-R): Development and validation of a symptom-oriented diagnostical instrument for the measurement of misophonia”. We would also like to thank you and the reviewer for the time and effort you dedicated on giving us feedback. In our revised manuscript, we tried to incorporate every aspect made by the reviewer. Below, you find a response to each of the reviewer’s comments. 1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions? Reviewer 1: Partly. Author response: We double-checked our methodological approach, our statistical analyses and the conclusions drawn. We believe that our data analyses support the conclusions made. Could you give us an example on where the manuscript is not technically sound and which conclusions are only partly supported by the analyses? 2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer 1: N/A. Author response: In the course of double-checking, we also re-calculated all of our statistical analyses and corrected minor errors in the manuscript, which do not affect interpretation or conclusions made before. These numerical errors were mainly based on rounding issues and errors in the specification of the maximum likelihood estimators CFA models. We are confident that our analyses are appropriate and correct. 4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English? Reviewer 1: No. Author response: We revised the entire manuscript linguistically. To our knowledge, there are no more typographical or grammatical errors. 5. Review Comments to the Author Reviewer 1: I think this paper is very significant and contemporary and the paper includes important aspects. Author response: Thank you! Reviewer 1: […] there are many shortfalls and I do believe this paper needs major correction and almost all of the sub-headings need to rewrite and some sub-heading should be added. Author response: We would really like to address and correct the raised shortfalls. However, we need to know the specific aspects you have in mind and would therefore like to ask you to specify the detected shortfalls. Regarding the sub-headings, we reformulated and reorganised mainly those in the theoretical background of the study. While we agree that the headings in the theoretical part indeed needed to be revised, we respectfully disagree regarding the other headings. The idea behind the subheadings labelled as diagnostic criteria/areas is to give a better overview of the complex structure of the questionnaire and to consequently refer to them in the results, too. We argue that this provides an essential orientation and, in our opinion, other headings would not suit to follow the paper, but impair the understanding tremendously. Reviewer 1: The total length of the article is roughly 70 pages. […] in the case of this article, a considerably shorter length has apparently done less harm than good, where the author can develop his points in full to the due level of sophistication and clarity – an issue to be backed up by evidences articulated thereafter in this decision report Author response: We agree that the paper is very long and therefore made some major changes to address this issue. In total, we were able to remove five pages and about 1400 words. The final manuscript length is about 12000 words (excluding the abstract, tables, figures, and references). In our opinion, a much shorter article would not meet the requirements for reporting materials and methods and would not allow a full understanding of the test development and comprehensive validation study. A comparable article about a scale development for measuring misophonia, which was recently published in Frontiers, with fewer dimensions and a considerably less extensive validation study is about the same length as our revised article (cf. Rosenthal et al., 2021; Development and Initial Validation of the Duke Misophonia Questionnaire). If you see the potential to further shorten the manuscript, we would appreciate more information on what parts are concerned. Below, you find a description of what we have shortened in the revision. Firstly, we shortened the introduction so that it concisely describes the current literature and the research gap and purpose of our work. Since our submission in 2021, new instruments have been developed and the article must address the alterations in key literature. That is why we needed to include small new paragraphs, however, we managed to rewrite the remainder, so that the paragraph “Existing instruments for measuring misophonia” is shorter than before. Secondly, we described our new measurement approach and the corresponding hypotheses more concisely. Most of the shortening was done in the methods and results sections. We described the many instruments that we used as short as possible and removed additional information. The CTCM(-1) modelling approach for aversive reactions has been removed. In the discussion, we shortened the paragraph describing model misspecifications and the implications from the CTCM(-1) model. Lastly, we removed the conclusions regarding RDoC and HiTOP. Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Response to the Reviewers.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0269428.r002
23 May 2022 Decision Letter - Sónia Brito-Costa, Editor The Berlin Misophonia Questionnaire Revised (BMQ-R): Development and validation of a symptom-oriented diagnostical instrument for the measurement of misophonia PONE-D-21-25396R1 Dear Dr. Remmert, 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, Sónia Brito-Costa, Ph.D. Academic Editor PLOS ONE Additional Editor Comments (optional): Reviewers' comments: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0269428.r003
Formally Accepted
10 Jun 2022 Acceptance Letter - Sónia Brito-Costa, Editor PONE-D-21-25396R1 The Berlin Misophonia Questionnaire Revised (BMQ-R): Development and validation of a symptom-oriented diagnostical instrument for the measurement of misophonia Dear Dr. Remmert: 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. Sónia Brito-Costa Academic Editor PLOS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0269428.r004

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 .