The potential role of religiosity, psychological immunity, gender, and age group in predicting the psychological well-being of diabetic patients in Saudi Arabia within the Bayesian framework

Nawal A. Al Eid; Boshra A. Arnout; Thabit A. Al-Qahtani; Slavica Pavlovic; Mohammed R. AlZahrani; Abdalla S. Abdelmotelab; Youssef S. Abdelmotelab

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0308454

Peer Review History

Original SubmissionMarch 7, 2024
17 Jun 2024 Decision Letter - Shazia Khalid, Editor PONE-D-24-08442The potential role of religiosity and psychological immunity in predicting psychological well-being of diabetic patients in Saudi Arabia within the Bayesian frameworkPLOS ONE Dear Dr. Arnout, 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: Kindly address following observations:1. Introduction section-5th para: second line needs to be reviewed.2. Page no. 3, 5th para: typing mistake (referred instead of refreed)3. Hypotheses need to be revised as per APA style.4. Please justify why Baysian tests were used? ============================== Please submit your revised manuscript by Jul 29 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, Shazia Khalid, PhD Academic Editor PLOS ONE Journal Requirements: 1. When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements. 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. e note that the grant information you provided in the ‘Funding Information’ and ‘Financial Disclosure’ sections do not match. When you resubmit, please ensure that you provide the correct grant numbers for the awards you received for your study in the ‘Funding Information’ section. 3. Thank you for stating the following in the Acknowledgments Section of your manuscript: [Princess Nourah bint Abdulrahman University Researchers Supporting Project number (PNURSP2023R380), Princess Nourah bint Abdulrahman University, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. ] We note that you have provided funding information that is not currently declared in your Funding Statement. However, funding information should not appear in the Acknowledgments section or other areas of your manuscript. We will only publish funding information present in the Funding Statement section of the online submission form. Please remove any funding-related text from the manuscript and let us know how you would like to update your Funding Statement. Currently, your Funding Statement reads as follows: [The author(s) received no specific funding for this work.] Please include your amended statements within your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf. 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: Partly Reviewer #2: Yes ******** 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: No 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: Formatting Issues: Ensure proper punctuation after headings, such as a colon. Capitalize the first letter of scale names in the method section. Ensure that Table 4 appears on a single page. Literature Review: Enhance the literature review by incorporating additional research to provide a more comprehensive analysis. Strengthen the argumentative and analytical aspects of the literature review to improve coherence and logical flow. Introductory Paragraph: Revise the introductory paragraph to provide a clearer overview of the research topic, objectives, and methodology. Bayesian Model Integration: Clarify the integration of the Bayesian model into the research methodology, particularly in relation to measuring religiosity and immunity in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, despite including non-Saudi populations in the sample. Consistency in Draft: Correct the consistent error in writing t-test names by ensuring the first letter is lowercase and italicized throughout the draft. Check for typographical errors, such as missing letters, in figures and throughout the text. In-text Citation Consistency: Standardize the citation format throughout the document to ensure consistency. Decide on a specific format, such as APA or MLA, and apply it uniformly. Discussion Section: Expand and deepen the discussion section to provide a more thorough analysis of the research findings and their implications. In summary, the document requires revisions to address formatting issues, enhance the literature review, clarify the integration of the Bayesian model, maintain consistency throughout the draft, and strengthen the discussion section. Reviewer #2: Overall the research paper impressively investigates into a topic but I would like to share few recommendations. 1. Paper has included many theories relevant to the study variables but I would suggest to summarize these theories and also specify which one theory you are focusing on while working on your research. 2. The paper's quality is elevated by the careful attention given to its methodology; however, the details of sampling technique used in the research will be a valuable addition. Also the details of how the assessment measure were developed by the researchers of the study should also be included. 3. Rationale and objectives of the study are missing. It must be included and the reason for using Bayesian framework should also be highlighted specifying its advantages and disadvantages. 4. The tile looks fine but it is just a recommendation after reading the whole paper that it should be rephrased and the role of gender and age should be incorporated in the title which are related to the main objectives of the study. 5. Future recommendations should also be added in the paper. ****** 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.0308454.r001
Revision 1
21 Jun 2024 Author Response Dear Editor Greetings Thank you for your great efforts and the reviewers, whose comments contributed to enhancing our manuscript. All comments have been taken into account, and We have edited all of the reviewer comments, we hope that the revised manuscript meets your acceptance. Best regards 1. Formatting Issues: Ensure proper punctuation after headings, such as a colon. Capitalize the first letter of scale names in the method section. Ensure that Table 4 appears on a single page. Reply: Thank you for your important comment, we edited all of these and highlighted them with yellow. 2. Literature Review: Enhance the literature review by incorporating additional research to provide a more comprehensive analysis. Strengthen the argumentative and analytical aspects of the literature review to improve coherence and logical flow. Reply: Thank you for your important comment, we edited and highlighted it with yellow. Introductory Paragraph: Revise the introductory paragraph to provide a clearer overview of the research topic, objectives, and methodology. Reply: Thank you for your important comment, we edited and highlighted it with yellow. Bayesian Model Integration: Clarify the integration of the Bayesian model into the research methodology, particularly in relation to measuring religiosity and immunity in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, despite including non-Saudi populations in the sample. Reply: Thank you for your important comment, we edited this in the data analysis section and highlighted it with yellow. Consistency in Draft: Correct the consistent error in writing t-test names by ensuring the first letter is lowercase and italicized throughout the draft. Reply: Thank you for your important comment, we corrected it in the manuscripts and highlighted all of them in yellow. Check for typographical errors, such as missing letters, in figures and throughout the text. In-text Citation Consistency: Reply: Thank you for your important comment, we corrected all and highlighted all of them in yellow. Standardize the citation format throughout the document to ensure consistency. Decide on a specific format, such as APA or MLA, and apply it uniformly. Reply: Thank you for your important comment, we checked it all and highlighted it with yellow. Discussion Section: Expand and deepen the discussion section to provide a more thorough analysis of the research findings and their implications. Reply: Thank you for your important comment, we edited and highlighted it with yellow. In summary, the document requires revisions to address formatting issues, enhance the literature review, clarify the integration of the Bayesian model, maintain consistency throughout the draft, and strengthen the discussion section. Reply: We are grateful for your valuable feedback that has contributed to improving the quality of our manuscript. All comments have been taken into account, and we edited the comments and hope they meet with your approval. Reply to the comments of the reviewer 2: Overall the research paper impressively investigates into a topic but I would like to share few recommendations. 1. Paper has included many theories relevant to the study variables but I would suggest to summarize these theories and also specify which one theory you are focusing on while working on your research. Reply: Thank you for your important comment, we summarized it and wrote that we developed the PWB scale according to the PWB Ryff model, and highlighted it with yellow. 2. The paper's quality is elevated by the careful attention given to its methodology; however, the details of sampling technique used in the research will be a valuable addition. Also the details of how the assessment measure were developed by the researchers of the study should also be included. Reply: Thank you for your important comment, we edited and highlighted it with yellow. 3. Rationale and objectives of the study are missing. It must be included and the reason for using Bayesian framework should also be highlighted specifying its advantages and disadvantages. Reply: Thank you for your important comment, we added reasons for using the Bayesian framework and highlighted it with yellow. 4. The tile looks fine but it is just a recommendation after reading the whole paper that it should be rephrased and the role of gender and age should be incorporated in the title which are related to the main objectives of the study. Reply: Thank you for your important comment, we edited the study title according to this recommendation and highlighted it with yellow. 5. Future recommendations should also be added in the paper. Reply: Thank you for your important comment, we wrote it in the (limitations and future directions) section and highlighted it with yellow. Dear reviewer, We are grateful for your valuable feedback that has contributed to improving the quality of our manuscript. All comments have been taken into account, and we edited the comments and hope they meet with your approval. Journal Requirements: 1. When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements. 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. Reply: Thank you for your important comment, we edited the manuscript according to PLOS ONE's style requirements. and highlighted it with yellow. 2. e note that the grant information you provided in the ‘Funding Information’ and ‘Financial Disclosure’ sections do not match. When you resubmit, please ensure that you provide the correct grant numbers for the awards you received for your study in the ‘Funding Information’ section. Reply: Thank you for your important comment, we edited and highlighted it with yellow. This work was supported by Princess Nourah bint Abdulrahman University Project number (PNURSP2023R380). 3. Thank you for stating the following in the Acknowledgments Section of your manuscript: [Princess Nourah bint Abdulrahman University Researchers Supporting Project number (PNURSP2023R380), Princess Nourah bint Abdulrahman University, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. ] We note that you have provided funding information that is not currently declared in your Funding Statement. However, funding information should not appear in the Acknowledgments section or other areas of your manuscript. We will only publish funding information present in the Funding Statement section of the online submission form. Please remove any funding-related text from the manuscript and let us know how you would like to update your Funding Statement. Currently, your Funding Statement reads as follows: [The author(s) received no specific funding for this work.] Please include your amended statements within your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf. Reply: Thank you for your important comment, please, our university demanded the following format of the Acknowledgment Section, necessary remain as it is : Princess Nourah bint Abdulrahman University Researchers Supporting Project number (PNURSP2023R380), Princess Nourah bint Abdulrahman University, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. 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. Reply: Thank you for your important comment, we reviewed the references and edited and highlighted them with yellow. Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Response to reviewers.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0308454.r002
9 Jul 2024 Decision Letter - Shazia Khalid, Editor PONE-D-24-08442R1The potential role of religiosity, psychological immunity, gender, and age group in predicting the psychological well-being of diabetic patients in Saudi Arabia within the Bayesian frameworkPLOS ONE Dear Dr. Arnout, The manusrcipt is approved for publication after incorporating following changes:1. Delete Null Hypotheses.2. Include reference for line no. 149.3. Reword line no. 219 as 'factorial structure' instead of 'structural factorial.' Please submit your revised manuscript by Aug 23 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, Shazia Khalid, PhD 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. 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.0308454.r003
Revision 2
10 Jul 2024 Author Response Dear Editor Greeting Thank you for your revision of our manuscript. We edited all changes and highlighted it in yellow. We hope the revised manuscript receive your acceptance. Best regards The manusrcipt is approved for publication after incorporating following changes: 1. Delete Null Hypotheses. Thank you for this comment, we edited it. 2. Include reference for line no. 149. Thank you for this comment, we edited it. 3. Reword line no. 219 as 'factorial structure' instead of 'structural factorial.' Thank you for this important comment, we edited it. Best regards https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0308454.r004
24 Jul 2024 Decision Letter - Shazia Khalid, Editor The potential role of religiosity, psychological immunity, gender, and age group in predicting the psychological well-being of diabetic patients in Saudi Arabia within the Bayesian framework PONE-D-24-08442R2 Dear Author, 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, Shazia Khalid, PhD Academic Editor PLOS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0308454.r005
Formally Accepted
14 Aug 2024 Acceptance Letter - Shazia Khalid, Editor PONE-D-24-08442R2 PLOS ONE Dear Dr. Arnout, 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 Professor Shazia Khalid Academic Editor PLOS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0308454.r006

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 .