The sexuality of couples formed during the pandemic: An exploratory study

Sara Filisetti; Carla Tortora; Cristina Paruta; Federica Ida Piazza; Marta Panzeri

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0275068

Peer Review History

Original SubmissionAugust 3, 2022
23 Aug 2022 Decision Letter - Habil Otanga, Editor PONE-D-22-21780The sexuality of couples formed during the pandemic: an exploratory studyPLOS ONE Dear Dr. Marta Panzeri, 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. ============================== ACADEMIC EDITOR:Reviewers are keen on the following: the need to narrow the focus of your study and have it reflected in your introduction, use of percentages to describe the FGD sample, integration of qualitative and quantitative approaches in the Discussion section, and applicability of your findings. The specific comments by reviewers are included in this letter. ============================== Please submit your revised manuscript by Oct 07 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, Habil Otanga, 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 amend either the abstract on the online submission form (via Edit Submission) or the abstract in the manuscript so that they are identical. 3. 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: Partly ******** 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: The current paper examines the effect on relationship formation and engagement in sexual behaviors in these relationships during the early phases of the COVID-19 pandemic for Italian men and women. Overall, the paper was well-written and methodologically coherent. I just have a few suggestions to strengthen and add some clarity to the paper. The authors need to discuss the purpose of this study and how it addresses or can shed light on the various consequences of the pandemic that they describe in the literature review. Once this is identified, the authors should streamline the introduction/literature review to focus on these points. Currently, the literature review is comprehensive but too broad to understand the focus of the study. Also, the authors could use headings to identify the focus of each section in the intro/literature review. The Authors should end with a concluding paragraph rather than the limitations. It doesn’t look like the authors integrated their qualitative and survey findings. This should be done so that there is a context for understanding the contribution of each method and how they complement and inform one another. Reviewer #2: I have had the privilege of reading your work. I have the following suggestions: 1. Edit your work. Check Line 4 of Introduction section - sentence beginning "On the other hand..."Word(s) missing; In Participants and Procedure section check Line 12 on p11 - word(s) missing after "given informed consent..."; In the Statistical Analysis section (p16), the last sentence provides a qualitative justification for a quantitative decision (use of t-tests). Ensure clarity. 2. Results: I have a problem with your use of percentages to describe a qualitative sample. It is difficult for the reader to conceptualize 19.2% or 92.3% of women (out of 26). For clarity, indicate frequency, and then show how you arrived at the frequency. For instance, were you counting participants who presented similar views? 3. Discussion: Be clear as to which sub-sample is being referred to in this section (whether FGD or questionnaires). The reader is confused when you say "half of the participants" or "minority of participants" without specifying whether they are FGD participants of those who responded to the quantitative tools. Finally, let the reader have an idea as to the practicality/applicability of the findings. ****** 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. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0275068.r001
Revision 1
7 Sep 2022 Author Response We thank reviewer #1 for his/her appreciation and precious advice. According to his/her suggestions we divide the Introduction section into subsections with headings, creating an “Objective” section to better explain the purpose of our study, adding this sentence: “In particular, we will focus on one hand on the potential changes in sexual desire, arousal, and/or frequency. On the other hand, we will focus on potential changes in the way in which the partner met, kept in touch, and the development of a romantic relationship. In both cases, we will consider possible factors underlying the presence or absence of changes.” We also conclude the paper with a “Conclusion” section: “In light of the results, the following considerations may be drawn. First of all, implementing a mixed method allowed us to provide a wide and adequate view of the formation of couples during the pandemic period. Secondly, the results presented here showed how the need to maintain closeness despite restrictions (32), the importance of dating technology and apps (33), taking time to reflect on one’s desires and expectancies in the couple, and the increase in the frequency of sexual intercourse (46) were factors that contributed to the maintenance of the couple despite the period of chaos and restriction. Furthermore, the second lockdown was experienced with greater anguish and fatigue precisely because it was preceded by another period of isolation and uncertainty (34). Despite this, the participants managed to find strategies that led both to strengthen their relationship and also to find new resources (eg silver lining) (39). In conclusion, we believe that this exploratory research could have useful applications in clinical settings, as it deepens and focuses on new challenges experienced by couples formed during the pandemic as well as those who experienced problems with consequent stress during the pandemic.” We integrated qualitative and quantitative results in more points: “Quantitative results showed that there were no gender differences in the different sexual and relationship parameters, confirming that in the falling love period gender differences are leveled (15). Together this highlights the evolutionary relevance of the phase of couple formation that seemed to overcome all possible obstacles to falling in love, deepen the relationship and create a strong sexual bonding (17)” “[Focus groups’ participants who managed to maintain sexual activity during the lockdown reported lower levels of psychological distress, developed better sexual functioning, and improved relationship adaptation (44,45)]. Even survey participants showed no differences in anxiety, stress, or depression during the different times of the study (first lockdown, summer period, second lockdown).” “[Furthermore, the fear that new restrictions prevented seeing one's partner may have brought out the need to exploit every available moment to have sex, as if the component of uncertainty provokes a sense of urgency in living the relationship.] Coherently, female survey participants reported experiencing increased sexual arousal and desire during the lockdown.” We thank reviewer #2 for his/her appreciation of our work and his/her suggestions: We answer point to point to him/her: 1. Edit your work. Check Line 4 of Introduction section - sentence beginning "On the other hand..."Word(s) missing; We changed “increased” into “increase”: “an increased in the frequency of sexual intercourses was also reported” In Participants and Procedure section check Line 12 on p11 - word(s) missing after "given informed consent..." We added “both”: “they were given both the informed consent and the socio-demographic questionnaire” In the Statistical Analysis section (p16), the last sentence provides a qualitative justification for a quantitative decision (use of t-tests). Ensure clarity. We changed it into: “Due to the small sample size only” 2. Results: I have a problem with your use of percentages to describe a qualitative sample. It is difficult for the reader to conceptualize 19.2% or 92.3% of women (out of 26). For clarity, indicate frequency, and then show how you arrived at the frequency. We changed all percentages into frequencies. For instance, were you counting participants who presented similar views? Thank you for rise this point, we missed to explain that. Now we added in the Method section: “The participants who named the various categories and sub-categories were counted.” 3. Discussion: Be clear as to which sub-sample is being referred to in this section (whether FGD or questionnaires). The reader is confused when you say "half of the participants" or "minority of participants" without specifying whether they are FGD participants of those who responded to the quantitative tools. We now added focus groups’ participants where needed. Finally, let the reader have an idea as to the practicality/applicability of the findings. We add a conclusion section in which we explain the applicability of the findings: “In light of the results, the following considerations may be drawn. First of all, implementing a mixed method allowed us to provide a wide and adequate view of the formation of couples during the pandemic period. Secondly, the results presented here showed how the need to maintain closeness despite restrictions (32), the importance of dating technology and apps (33), taking time to reflect on one’s desires and expectancies in the couple, and the increase in the frequency of sexual intercourse (46) were factors that contributed to the maintenance of the couple despite the period of chaos and restriction. Furthermore, the second lockdown was experienced with greater anguish and fatigue precisely because it was preceded by another period of isolation and uncertainty (34). Despite this, the participants managed to find strategies that led both to strengthen their relationship and also to find new resources (eg silver lining) (39). In conclusion, we believe that this exploratory research could have useful applications in clinical settings, as it deepens and focuses on new challenges experienced by couples formed during the pandemic as well as those who experienced problems with consequent stress during the pandemic.” Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: response to reviewers.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0275068.r002
12 Sep 2022 Decision Letter - Habil Otanga, Editor The sexuality of couples formed during the pandemic: an exploratory study PONE-D-22-21780R1 Dear Dr. Panzeri, 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, Habil Otanga, Ph.D Academic Editor PLOS ONE Additional Editor Comments (optional): Reviewers' comments: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0275068.r003
Formally Accepted
20 Sep 2022 Acceptance Letter - Habil Otanga, Editor PONE-D-22-21780R1 The sexuality of couples formed during the pandemic: an exploratory study Dear Dr. Panzeri: 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. Habil Otanga Academic Editor PLOS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0275068.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 .