Examining recovery experiences as a mediator between physical activity and study-related stress and well-being during prolonged exam preparation at university

Tom Reschke; Thomas Lobinger; Katharina Reschke

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0306809

Peer Review History

Original SubmissionDecember 5, 2023
1 Apr 2024 Decision Letter - Gal Harpaz, Editor PONE-D-23-39069Examining recovery experiences as a mediator between physical activity and study-related stress and well-being during prolonged exam preparation at universityPLOS ONE Dear Dr. Reschke, 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. ==============================Dear AuthorsThree reviewers read your manuscript and found it relevant and a good candidate for publication. At the same time, an update is required in the literature review section, note reviewer 1's comment on this topic. After updating literature based on articles published in the last two years (2023-2024), we will be happy to receive the updated version by resubmission and move forward. ============================== Please submit your revised manuscript by May 16 2024 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, Gal Harpaz, 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. PLOS requires an ORCID iD for the corresponding author in Editorial Manager on papers submitted after December 6th, 2016. Please ensure that you have an ORCID iD and that it is validated in Editorial Manager. To do this, go to ‘Update my Information’ (in the upper left-hand corner of the main menu), and click on the Fetch/Validate link next to the ORCID field. This will take you to the ORCID site and allow you to create a new iD or authenticate a pre-existing iD in Editorial Manager. Please see the following video for instructions on linking an ORCID iD to your Editorial Manager account: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_xcclfuvtxQ. 3. We note that you have indicated that there are restrictions to data sharing for this study. 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. Before we proceed with your manuscript, 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 identifying or sensitive patient information, data are owned by a third-party organization, etc.) and who has imposed them (e.g., a Research Ethics Committee or Institutional Review Board, etc.). 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 to a stable, public repository and provide us with the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers. For a list of recommended repositories, please see https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/recommended-repositories. You also have the option of uploading the data as Supporting Information files, but we would recommend depositing data directly to a data repository if possible. We will update your Data Availability statement on your behalf to reflect the information you provide. 4. 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 Reviewer #3: Yes ******** 2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes Reviewer #3: 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 Reviewer #3: 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 Reviewer #3: 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: REVIEWER’S REPORT Summary of Manuscript Number: PONE-D-23-39069 • The authors conducted a study on “examining recovery experiences as a mediator between physical activity and study-related stress and well-being during prolonged exam preparation at university.” • The authors applied a longitudinal design and approached students at three measurement occasions over seven months. • The participants were 56 advanced law students enrolled at one large German university. • The findings showed a negative trend in recovery-related variables and the outcomes as exam preparation progressed. • The authors realized that their results suggest that the positive effects of recovery experiences related to physical activity become more sustained as exam preparation progresses and have a particularly positive impact on well-being. Soundness and Quality of the Paper The main claim of the paper thus “the role of recovery experiences as a mediator of the relationship between physical activity as one specific recovery activity and both study-related stress and well-being” is significant for the discipline. The authors’ claim was properly placed in the context of previous literature which they treated fairly. The data and the analyses fully supported their claim. The methods applied are appropriate. The manuscript is well organized and written clearly enough. I believe it will be accessible to non-specialists. Comments to the Author(s) The authors should reconsider their literature review. In all, they cited 63 articles, only 23 (36.5%) were published between 2014 to 2023. The remaining 40 (63.5%) articles were too old for this kind of article. Therefore, I suggest that whatsoever literature they want to use, it should not be older than 2014. If this is addressed, then, the paper can be considered for publication. Reviewer #2: Comments for the author: This study provides very important statistical data and descriptive results on physical activity (sport, exercise) as a recovery activity would constitute a meaningful resource to reduce chronic stress and to increase well- being, as well as a good mental health for law students during their academic or school life (specially in exams). The abstract is good. But introduction is very long or extensive. Results, discussion, and conclusion are good. References: All references are cited in manuscript. Reviewer #3: Scholarly display of great command over the subject matter. Congratulations on a paper well written. All key sections of the manuscript have been adequately written consistent with the guidelines of the journal. ****** 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 Reviewer #3: Yes: BOTHA Nkosi Nkosi ******** [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.0306809.r001
Revision 1
21 Apr 2024 Author Response Reply to Editor Before we provide a detailed report of the changes we have made to the manuscript, we want to thank you for your valuable and much appreciated feedback and for the many helpful suggestions on how to improve our paper. We have addressed all of concerns that were raised and followed the advice. We think that the revision process has substantially improved the manuscript and we hope that you will deem the revised manuscript suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Sincerely, The Authors Reply to Reviewer 1 The authors conducted a study on “examining recovery experiences as a mediator between physical activity and study-related stress and well-being during prolonged exam preparation at university.” The authors applied a longitudinal design and approached students at three measurement occasions over seven months. The participants were 56 advanced law students enrolled at one large German university. The findings showed a negative trend in recovery-related variables and the outcomes as exam preparation progressed. The authors realized that their results suggest that the positive effects of recovery experiences related to physical activity become more sustained as exam preparation progresses and have a particularly positive impact on well-being. Soundness and Quality of the Paper The main claim of the paper thus “the role of recovery experiences as a mediator of the relationship between physical activity as one specific recovery activity and both study-related stress and well-being” is significant for the discipline. The authors’ claim was properly placed in the context of previous literature which they treated fairly. The data and the analyses fully supported their claim. The methods applied are appropriate. The manuscript is well organized and written clearly enough. I believe it will be accessible to non-specialists. Comments to the Author(s) The authors should reconsider their literature review. In all, they cited 63 articles, only 23 (36.5%) were published between 2014 to 2023. The remaining 40 (63.5%) articles were too old for this kind of article. Therefore, I suggest that whatsoever literature they want to use, it should not be older than 2014. If this is addressed, then, the paper can be considered for publication. Thank you for this good comment. We have deleted many references that are older than 2014 from the manuscript. This effort now results in a significantly better ratio between older and newer studies (44 cited articles in total with approx. 40% older studies and 60% newer studies). However, we think that some should remain in the paper for the following reasons (considered in the order in which they appear in the manuscript): • The study by Oaten and Cheng (2005) is a fundamental study that has influenced subsequent studies in the field. It is typically cited in other recent research that has examined stress in students and the role of physical activity (e.g., Lines et al., 2021). • The study by Glöckner et al. (2013) enables interested readers who would like more background information to find out more about studying law in Germany and the examination modalities. To our knowledge, there is no other study that goes into this in such detail. • The definitions of stress and well-being represent the central outcomes of our study, which is why we cite the work of Lazarus and Folkman (1984) and Diener (1984), who defined these constructs within psychological literature and whose wording is still agreed upon in the scientific community today. Furthermore, it also helps the reader to retrace the constructs origins. • The Conservation of Resources Theory (COR; Hobfoll, 1989, 2002) is one of the predominant theoretical approaches for understanding the recovery process. As this model is used to derive the research question, we felt it necessary to mention the original work on this model. • Because the research situation in favor of physical activity with university students is less detailed, especially during final examinations, we would like to leave the cited studies in the manuscript (Griffin et al., 1993; Molina-García et al., 2011; Oaten & Cheng, 2005; Tyson et al., 2010; Steptoe et al., 1996). This serves to clarify the added value of our study against the background of the research gap. • The study by Sonnentag and Fritz (2007) developed an initial taxonomy of recovery experiences comprising psychological detachment from work, relaxation, mastery, and control. This is a key study that is commonly cited when describing the individual components of recovery experiences. This study also forms the basis for the Recovery Experience Questionnaire (REQ), which we describe later in the measures section. • The study from Ragsdale et al. (2011) is described in more detail in the manuscript because it is considered an important preliminary work for the present study (recovery processes were also examined in more detail in mediation analyses for the first time in an academic context). • Both studies Holm-Hadulla and Hofmann (2007) and Holm-Hadulla et al. (2009) are important because they developed our measurement tool for study-related well-being. Both studies are in turn based on the work of Diener et al. (1985), which we would like to make clear at this point. The work of Thompson (2007), which is based on the preliminary work of Watson et al. (1988), is similar. • We cite the work of Hayes (2013) to illustrate the statistical analysis method we used and exactly how we went about it. Reply to Reviewer 2 This study provides very important statistical data and descriptive results on physical activity (sport, exercise) as a recovery activity would constitute a meaningful resource to reduce chronic stress and to increase well- being, as well as a good mental health for law students during their academic or school life (specially in exams). The abstract is good. But introduction is very long or extensive. Results, discussion, and conclusion are good. References: All references are cited in manuscript. Thank you for this valuable comment. We have now shortened the introduction significantly to improve the reading flow. Reply to Reviewer 3 Scholarly display of great command over the subject matter. Congratulations on a paper well written. All key sections of the manuscript have been adequately written consistent with the guidelines of the journal. Thank you for your kind words. Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Reply to Editor.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0306809.r002
25 Jun 2024 Decision Letter - Gal Harpaz, Editor Examining recovery experiences as a mediator between physical activity and study-related stress and well-being during prolonged exam preparation at university PONE-D-23-39069R1 Dear Dr. Reschke, 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 will be generated when your article is formally accepted. Please note, if your institution has a publishing partnership with PLOS and your article meets the relevant criteria, all or part of your publication costs will be covered. Please make sure your user information is up-to-date by logging into Editorial Manager at Editorial Manager® and clicking the ‘Update My Information' link at the top of the page. If you have any questions relating to publication charges, 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, Gal Harpaz, Ph.D. Academic Editor PLOS ONE Additional Editor Comments (optional): Dear Authors Much appreciation for the efforts and thoroughness with which you addressed the reviewers' comments. The revised version of the article deserves to be published, the changes you made in it provide an excellent response to the comments and suggestions of the reviewers. Therefore, the article is accepted for publication in its current version. Best regards Dr. Gal Harpaz Reviewers' comments: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0306809.r003
Formally Accepted
10 Jul 2024 Acceptance Letter - Gal Harpaz, Editor PONE-D-23-39069R1 PLOS ONE Dear Dr. Reschke, I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now being handed over to our production team. At this stage, our production department will prepare your paper for publication. This includes ensuring the following: * All references, tables, and figures are properly cited * All relevant supporting information is included in the manuscript submission, * There are no issues that prevent the paper from being properly typeset If revisions are needed, the production department will contact you directly to resolve them. If no revisions are needed, you will receive an email when the publication date has been set. At this time, we do not offer pre-publication proofs to authors during production of the accepted work. Please keep in mind that we are working through a large volume of accepted articles, so please give us a few weeks to review your paper and let you know the next and final steps. Lastly, 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 customercare@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. Gal Harpaz Academic Editor PLOS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0306809.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 .