The effects of Swiss summer camp on the development of socio-emotional abilities in children

Yves Gerber; Edouard Gentaz; Jennifer Malsert

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0276665

Peer Review History

Original SubmissionDecember 21, 2021
11 Jul 2022 Decision Letter - Joseph Donlan, Editor PONE-D-21-40215The effects of Swiss summer camp on the development of socio-emotional abilities in childrenPLOS ONE Dear Dr. Malsert, 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 note that we have only been able to secure a single reviewer to assess your manuscript. We are issuing a decision on your manuscript at this point to prevent further delays in the evaluation of your manuscript. Please be aware that the editor who handles your revised manuscript might find it necessary to invite additional reviewers to assess this work once the revised manuscript is submitted. However, we will aim to proceed on the basis of this single review if possible. Your manuscript has been assessed by an expert reviewer, whose comments are appended below. The reviewer has highlighted concerns about several aspects of the methodology and framing of the research questions/hypotheses, among other issues. Please ensure you respond to each point carefully in your response to reviewers document, and modify your manuscript accordingly. Please submit your revised manuscript by Aug 22 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, Joseph Donlan Editorial Office 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. We note that you have indicated that data from this study are available upon request. PLOS only allows data to be available upon request if there are legal or ethical restrictions on sharing data publicly. For more information on unacceptable data access restrictions, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-unacceptable-data-access-restrictions. In your revised cover letter, please address the following prompts: a) If there are ethical or legal restrictions on sharing a de-identified data set, please explain them in detail (e.g., data contain potentially sensitive information, data are owned by a third-party organization, etc.) and who has imposed them (e.g., an ethics committee). Please also provide contact information for a data access committee, ethics committee, or other institutional body to which data requests may be sent. b) If there are no restrictions, please upload the minimal anonymized data set necessary to replicate your study findings as either Supporting Information files or to a stable, public repository and provide us with the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers. For a list of acceptable repositories, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-recommended-repositories. We will update your Data Availability statement on your behalf to reflect the information you provide. 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 ******** 2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: 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 ****** 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 ****** 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 Author(s): I was pleased to have the opportunity to review the manuscript, “The effects of Swiss summer camp on the development of social-emotional abilities in children.” The study contributes to the body of knowledge associated with benefits of summer camp participation for youth, with a specific focus on altruism and self-esteem as targeted outcomes. Provided below are my recommended edits, comments, and questions. Page 3, line 44 • Please clarify—“…target for universal prevention” of what? Page 3, line 49 • Replace “these” with “organised activities” Page 3, line 54 • Should “spells” be “sports” Page 4, line 61 • Recommend replacing “several adults” with “supportive adults” Page 4, line 68 • Shouldn’t “This is the first” be “This was the first”? Page 5, line 84 • Please define “holiday camps” for international readers who may be unfamiliar with the term. Page 5 • General comment: Adding specific hypotheses or research questions after the purpose (aim) statements would improve the manuscript. Page 6 • General comment: Identifying the study as having a quasi-experimental design is recommended, as many studies of summer camp have used cross sectional designs. Pages 6-8 • General comment: Good use of previously designed measures that were also validated through Confirmatory Factor Analysis. Page 11 • General question: With regard to the data preparation and analyses, how were outliers, the distribution of the data, and missing data analyzed/treated? Please add this detail. Page 12 • General comment: I appreciated the author(s) decision to use hierarchical clustering, an approach that is not often used with the summer camp literature. Such cluster analysis has the potential to better inform characteristics of youth that may be more likely to benefit from summer camp experiences. Page 13, line 271 • Recommend replacing “more than” with “when compared to” Page 14, line 292 • General comment: Some scholarly literature suggests it’s not necessary to report effect sizes for non-significant differences. If you decided to include effect sizes in this case, you might explain why such information is important for readers to consider. Page 15, line 308 • I believe “camp organism” should read “camp organization” Page 15, lines 312-313 • The figures are not labelled in the manuscript I reviewed. Pages 15-19 • General comment: It’s not clear why the profiles are included in the Results section, because they aren’t discussed at all. It seems entirely unnecessary. As noted earlier in my review, I think these analyses are very interesting and can make a valuable contribution to the summer camp literature. However, these profiles need attention to the Discussion, otherwise they should be dropped from the paper. Page 20, lines 413-420 • The flow of this portion of the paragraph is a bit awkward. I recommend moving the sentence that begins, “This is consistent with…” so that it comes after the sentence that begins, “According to the profile analysis…” Page 21, lines 434-438 • General comment: Self-esteem may be more stable and less malleable through a 1-2 week summer camp experience. Page 21, lines 441-443 • General comment: You might point out the influence of a possible “ceiling effect” here, which also limits variance in your data. Page 21, line 446 • Recommend moving the word “precisely” so it comes after “benefits” in line 447. ****** 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 ******** [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.0276665.r001
Revision 1
17 Jul 2022 Author Response Points raised by the reviewer and responses: • Page 3, line 44 Please clarify —“…target for universal prevention” of what? We added clarification: “(e.g. school bullying, school failure, youth violence)”. • Page 3, line 49 Replace “these” with “organised activities” Done. • Page 3, line 54 Should “spells” be “sports” Done. • Page 4, line 61 Recommend replacing “several adults” with “supportive adults” Done. • Page 4, line 68 Shouldn’t “This is the first” be “This was the first”? Done. • Page 5, line 84 Please define “holiday camps” for international readers who may be unfamiliar with the term. Done: “defined as residential and structured extracurricular activities taking place over several days during the holiday periods”. • Page 5 General comment: Adding specific hypotheses or research questions after the purpose (aim) statements would improve the manuscript. Two research questions were added: “The two research questions of the study were: (1) To what extent participation in summer camps is associated with increased self-esteem and altruism in children and adolescents aged 6–16 years? (2) What factors may influence the development of self-esteem and altruism in children and adolescents aged 6 to 16 who attend summer camps?” • Page 6 General comment: Identifying the study as having a quasi-experimental design is recommended, as many studies of summer camp have used cross sectional designs. We added quasi-experimental in abstract and “took part in this quasi-experimental design study” in method section. • Pages 6-8 General comment: Good use of previously designed measures that were also validated through Confirmatory Factor Analysis. Thank you for this comment. • Page 11 General question: With regard to the data preparation and analyses, how were outliers, the distribution of the data, and missing data analyzed/treated? Please add this detail. We added: “The assumptions of the statistical analyses were checked. In case of outliers or violation of the normality assumption, the nonparametric alternatives proposed by Broc et al. (2016) were also performed. In this article, the results of the parametric analyses, which are relatively robust (e.g. Cessie et al., 2020; Knief & Forstmeier, 2021) and lead to the same conclusions, are reported. Missing data were excluded analysis by analysis.” • Page 12 General comment: I appreciated the author(s) decision to use hierarchical clustering, an approach that is not often used with the summer camp literature. Such cluster analysis has the potential to better inform characteristics of youth that may be more likely to benefit from summer camp experiences. Thank you, it seems important for us for a better understanding of this effects. • Page 13, line 271 Recommend replacing “more than” with “when compared to” Done. • Page 14, line 292 General comment: Some scholarly literature suggests it’s not necessary to report effect sizes for non-significant differences. If you decided to include effect sizes in this case, you might explain why such information is important for readers to consider. Indeed, we deleted the effect sizes for non-significant values. • Page 15, line 308 I believe “camp organism” should read “camp organization” Done (line 317). • Page 15, lines 312-313 The figures are not labelled in the manuscript I reviewed. We verified and added the missing elements. • Pages 15-19 General comment: It’s not clear why the profiles are included in the Results section, because they aren’t discussed at all. It seems entirely unnecessary. As noted earlier in my review, I think these analyses are very interesting and can make a valuable contribution to the summer camp literature. However, these profiles need attention to the Discussion, otherwise they should be dropped from the paper. Indeed, a point of discussion on these different profiles was missing to enhance the interest of these analyses. We added a whole paragraph in the discussion to summarize the main observations made by the profile analysis (Lines 422-437). • Page 20, lines 413-420 The flow of this portion of the paragraph is a bit awkward. I recommend moving the sentence that begins, “This is consistent with…” so that it comes after the sentence that begins, “According to the profile analysis…” The sentence was moved (lines 437-439). • Page 21, lines 434-438 General comment: Self-esteem may be more stable and less malleable through a 1-2 week summer camp experience. Indeed, we added “Self-esteem may indeed be less malleable during a two-week summer camp experience” (Line 463). • Page 21, lines 441-443 General comment: You might point out the influence of a possible “ceiling effect” here, which also limits variance in your data. Effectively, we added “Due to the possible ceiling effect, it seems difficult to detect an increase in the self-esteem score” (Lines 460-461). • Page 21, line 446 Recommend moving the word “precisely” so it comes after “benefits” in line 447. Done (Lines 466-467). https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0276665.r002
12 Oct 2022 Decision Letter - Shazia Khalid, Editor The effects of Swiss summer camp on the development of socio-emotional abilities in children PONE-D-21-40215R1 Dear Dr. Malsert, 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, Shazia Khalid, PhD Academic Editor PLOS ONE Additional Editor Comments (optional): 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 ******** 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 ****** 3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: 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 ****** 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 ****** 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: Thank you for addressing my questions, comments, and concerns in your revisions. The manuscript is much improved. Nicely done! ****** 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 ******** https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0276665.r003
Formally Accepted
18 Oct 2022 Acceptance Letter - Shazia Khalid, Editor PONE-D-21-40215R1 The effects of Swiss summer camp on the development of socio-emotional abilities in children Dear Dr. Malsert: 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 Professor Shazia Khalid Academic Editor PLOS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0276665.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 .