Parental non-involvement strategy for handling sibling conflict on social avoidance in migrant children: Chain mediation of sibling conflict and parent-child conflict

Yuge Yue; Kaiwu Lu; Danping Ye

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0308561

Peer Review History

Original SubmissionApril 1, 2024
9 Jul 2024 Decision Letter - Muddsar Hameed, Editor PONE-D-24-12364Parental Non-involvement Strategy for Handling Sibling Conflict on Social Avoidance in Migrant Children: Chain Mediation of Sibling Conflict and Parent-Child ConflictPLOS ONE Dear Dr. Lu, Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process. Please submit your revised manuscript by 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, Muddsar Hameed 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 provide additional details regarding participant consent. In the ethics statement in the Methods and online submission information, please ensure that you have specified (1) whether consent was informed and (2) what type you obtained (for instance, written or verbal, and if verbal, how it was documented and witnessed). If your study included minors, state whether you obtained consent from parents or guardians. If the need for consent was waived by the ethics committee, please include this information. If you are reporting a retrospective study of medical records or archived samples, please ensure that you have discussed whether all data were fully anonymized before you accessed them and/or whether the IRB or ethics committee waived the requirement for informed consent. If patients provided informed written consent to have data from their medical records used in research, please include this information. 3. Thank you for stating the following in the Funding Section of your manuscript: “This study was supported by a grant from the Office for Philosophy and Social Sciences in Fujian Province, China (Title: Examining the New Era's Urban Floating Population's Family Relationships in Fujian Province. ID: FJ2022X022)” 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. We note that your Data Availability Statement is currently as follows: [All relevant data are within the manuscript and its Supporting Information files.] Please confirm at this time whether or not your submission contains all raw data required to replicate the results of your study. Authors must share the “minimal data set” for their submission. PLOS defines the minimal data set to consist of the data required to replicate all study findings reported in the article, as well as related metadata and methods (https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-minimal-data-set-definition). For example, authors should submit the following data: - The values behind the means, standard deviations and other measures reported; - The values used to build graphs; - The points extracted from images for analysis. Authors do not need to submit their entire data set if only a portion of the data was used in the reported study. If your submission does not contain these data, please either upload them as Supporting Information files or deposit them 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. 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. If data are owned by a third party, please indicate how others may request data access. 5. 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: 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: Work on the article, literature, hypothesis, tools. Moreover also update the article with recent knowledge. Improve the limitations and recommendations of this article. To improve the quality and content of your article. Reviewer #2: • The reference for the Bronfenbrenner's ecological systems theory has not been provided • Provide China's family model reference • Define key terms such as "social avoidance" and "social adjustment" upfront to ensure readers understand these concepts from the beginning • Further explanation of the mechanisms by which parent-child conflict and sibling conflict influence social avoidance would add depth to the analysis. • Ensure all citations follow a consistent format. There are some inconsistencies in citation styles and formatting • The use of convenience sampling may limit the generalizability of the findings whereas random sampling technique enhances the representativeness of the sample, given the sample size is small. • The study relies heavily on self-reported data from parents, which can introduce response biases. • The study does not include the perspectives of the children themselves. ****** 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: Yes: Khazeneen Atiq ******** [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. Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: recm.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0308561.r001
Revision 1
24 Jul 2024 Author Response Dear reviewers and editors： We would like to thank you for your careful reading, helpful comments, and constructive suggestions, which has significantly improved the presentation of our manuscript. We have carefully considered all comments from the reviewers and revised our manuscript accordingly. In the following section, we summarize our responses to each comment from the reviewers (See red font in the text for details of the changes). We hope our revised manuscript can be accepted for publication. The following is a point-by-point response to the editors’ comments. 1.Abstract Clarity: The abstract provides a good overview but can be improved for clarity. Consider explicitly stating the research design, key findings, and implications in a structured manner (e.g., Objectives, Methods, Results, Conclusions). Response 1: We are grateful for the suggestion. We have revised it in the abstracts using red typeface. I am truly grateful for all your comments. I was deeply moved by your help. In the process of urbanization, the social adaptation of migrant children has become an important issue in their development. This study adopts family systems theory and ecological systems theory to examine the effects of parental non-involvement strategies in handling sibling conflict on migrant children's social avoidance. It also investigates the mediating role of sibling conflict and parent-child conflict. The results of the study, reported by parents of 253 mobile children with siblings, suggest that parental strategies of not intervening in sibling conflict are an important factor influencing the development of social avoidance in mobile children. Parental strategy of not intervening in sibling conflict had an effect on migrant children's social avoidance through the separate mediating effect of parent-child conflict, and also through the chained mediating effect of sibling conflict and parent-child conflict. The study also found that the separate mediating effect of sibling conflict was not significant. This study contributes to the research on the relationship between parental non-intervention in sibling conflict and migrant children's social avoidance. It also highlights the impact of sibling conflict and parent-child conflict on migrant children's social avoidance by establishing and validating a comprehensive research model. The results of the study can help parents establish close parent-child relationships for migrant children and provide scientific guidance for children to develop positive sibling relationships. This, in turn, can assist migrant children in better adapting to new social environment. 2.Literature Review: The introduction could benefit from a more comprehensive literature review. Incorporate recent studies on sibling conflict, parental non-involvement, and social avoidance to establish a stronger theoretical foundation. Response 2: We are grateful for the suggestion. We have revised it in the introduction using red typeface. I am truly grateful for all your comments, which make the introduction establish a stronger theoretical foundation. 3.Hypotheses Statement: Clearly state your research hypotheses at the end of the introduction. This helps in guiding the reader and setting clear expectations for the study. Response 3: We are grateful for the suggestion. We have revised it at the end of the introduction using red typeface. I am truly grateful for all your comments, which help the reader establish a clear expectations for the study. 4.Sample Size Justification: Provide a justification for the sample size of 253 children. Include a power analysis to demonstrate that the sample size is adequate to detect the expected effects. Data Collection Method: Detail the data collection process, including how participants were recruited and how the surveys were administered. Mention any ethical considerations and how informed consent was obtained. Ethical Considerations: Expand on the ethical considerations in the methodology section. Mention the ethical review board's approval and any measures taken to protect participants' confidentiality and well-being. Response 4: We are grateful for the suggestion. We have revised it in the Data collection using red typeface. I am truly grateful for all your comments. Your suggestions make our sample size and data collection more scientific. After receiving approval from the Research Ethics Review Committee of Ningde Normal University , this study used convenience sampling to select 10 kindergartens in the four cities of Xiamen, Zhangzhou, Quanzhou, and Ningde in China Fujian Province. Subsequently, 30 children with siblings were randomly chosen from each kindergarten, totaling 300 children. With the assistance of kindergarten teachers, the children's birthplaces were verified, leading to the exclusion of 42 local children. Finally, 258 migrant children were included in the study. The parents of these children were then surveyed with the assistance of the kindergarten teachers. Before distributing the questionnaires, the classroom teachers utilized the time when parents were picking up their children to individually explain the purpose and significance of the survey. They clarified to the parents that the survey was solely for the research project and would not be used to evaluate the parents or the children. Additionally, parents were assured that the questionnaire would be filled out anonymously, would not reveal personal information about their children or themselves, and that verbal consent was obtained from all the parents surveyed.Between March 10 and April 10, 2023, our research team distributed a total of 258 questionnaires through the Questionnaire Star website. To ensure that parents felt comfortable answering the questionnaires, the importance of the questionnaire and the confidentiality of the responses were explained in the introductory section. After removing the questionnaires with identical answers for all items, 253 valid responses were recorded for the final data analysis. 5.Measurement Tools: Provide more details on the psychometric properties of the measurement tools used (e.g., validity, reliability). Mention any cultural adaptations made for the scales used in the Chinese context. Response 5: We are grateful for the suggestion. We have revised it in the 2.2Research tools using red typeface. I am truly grateful for all your comments. We have added evidence of the reliability and validity of the scale for use in Chinese and international studies. 2.2 Research tools 2.2.1 Non-involvement Scale Taiwan and mainland China share a common cultural heritage, so the scale has a relatively strong cultural adaptation in mainland China. It has been widely used in related research in mainland China, with good reliability and validity testing [36,41]. 2.2.2 Sibling Conflict Scale The scale has been widely used in relevant studies both domestically and internationally, and it has undergone thorough testing for reliability and validity[61,62,63]. 2.2.3 Parent-Child Conflict Scale The scale has been widely used in relevant studies both domestically and internationally, and it has undergone thorough testing for reliability and validity[65,66,67]. 2.2.4 Social Avoidance Scale The Social Avoidance scale developed by Sang [68] was used as the measurement tool. It has undergone thorough testing for reliability and validity. 6.Statistical Analysis: Explain the choice of statistical methods in more detail. For example, discuss why the SPSS macro developed by Hayes was chosen for mediation analysis and how the results were interpreted. Response 6: We are grateful for the suggestion. We have revised it in the 2.3 Data Processing using red typeface. I am truly grateful for all your comments. Your suggestions make our study more scientific. 2.3 Data processing The questionnaire data were analyzed using SPSS 21.0. The mediation effect test was conducted based on the method recommended by Zhonglin Wen and Baojuan Ye[69]. The data were organized and analyzed using Hayes' SPSS macro program PROCESS[70]. 7.Common Method Bias: The study mentions using Harman's one-way test for common method bias. Consider discussing the potential limitations of this test and explore additional methods to mitigate common method bias. Response 7: We are grateful for the suggestion. We have revised it in the 2.4 Common method tests using red typeface. I am truly grateful for all your comments. Your suggestions make our study more scientific. 2.4 Common method tests Data collection through the questionnaire method needs to be tested for the presence of serious common method bias. Firstly, to ensure the scientific validity of the questionnaire data, a different scale format was used, such as changing the position of the independent and dependent variables in the questionnaire, to mitigate common method bias to some extent. Secondly, the questionnaire in this study was mainly parent-reported (as children in the early childhood stage could not complete the questionnaire). Therefore, Harman's one-way test was employed for the common method bias test [71], and the results indicated that the number of common factors with eigenvalues greater than 1 was 7. The percentage of variance explained by the first common factor was 25.118%, which was below the critical value of 50%[72]. Subsequently, the variance inflation factor (VIF) was evaluated, revealing that the VIF values of all constructs ranged between 1.294-1.401. According to Kock[73], a VIF value below 3.3 suggests that covariance is not a significant issue in the study model. Hence, there is no evidence of common method bias in this study. 8.Discussion Depth: The discussion section should be more comprehensive. Relate your findings to existing literature, explain possible reasons for your findings, and discuss the practical implications for parents and educators. Figures and Tables: Ensure that all figures and tables are clearly labeled and provide additional context where necessary. For example, Figure 1 should be referenced in the text with a brief explanation of its contents. Response 8: We are grateful for the suggestion. We have revised it in the 3 Results, 4 Discussion, and 5 Research value using red typeface. I am truly grateful for all your comments. Your suggestions make our study more clearer and scientific. 9.Limitations and Future Research: While some limitations are mentioned, provide a more thorough discussion. Suggest specific areas for future research, such as longitudinal studies or the impact of different parental strategies on sibling conflict resolution. Response 9: We are grateful for the suggestion. We have revised it in the 6 Research shortcomings and prospects using red typeface. I am truly grateful for all your comments. We provide a more thorouge discussion First, the subjects of this study are preschool children, who are in an important period of socialization. Behavioral problems may change with age. This study is a cross-sectional study, and a longitudinal study can be adopted in the future to explore the mechanism of action in more depth. Third, this study focuses on non-intervention strategies, how child-centered and control strategies [32,18] impact the social development of mobile children? What about the mediating role of sibling and parent-child relationships? These aspects could be crucial directions and components for future research. Fourth, as the subject of this study is migrant children, do the elements of the family relationship system affect the social development of local children in the same way as that of migrant children? What is the mechanism of influence? These aspects could be crucial directions and components for future research. 10.References: Update the references section to include the most recent studies and ensure all citations are properly formatted according to the journal's guidelines. Response 10: We are grateful for the suggestion. We have update the references, including the most recent studies and the citations format according to the juurnal’s guidelines. I am truly grateful for all your comments. 11.Language and Style: Ensure the manuscript is free from grammatical errors and uses clear, concise language. Consider professional editing to enhance readability. Response 11: We are grateful for the suggestion. We have revised the Language and Style. I am truly grateful for all your comments. 12.Supplementary Materials: If applicable, provide supplementary materials such as survey questionnaires or detailed statistical outputs to support the findings. Response 12: We are grateful for the suggestion. Research materials can be obtained from the corresponding author if required. Once again, we thank the reviewers and editors for recognizing our research! We sincerely hope this manuscript will be finally acceptable to be published . Thank you very much for all your help and looking forward to hearing from you soon. Best regards Sincerely yours Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0308561.r002
26 Jul 2024 Decision Letter - Muddsar Hameed, Editor Parental Non-involvement Strategy for Handling Sibling Conflict on Social Avoidance in Migrant Children: Chain Mediation of Sibling Conflict and Parent-Child Conflict PONE-D-24-12364R1 Dear Dr. Kaiwu Lu , 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, Muddsar Hameed Academic Editor PLOS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0308561.r003
Formally Accepted
31 Aug 2024 Acceptance Letter - Muddsar Hameed, Editor PONE-D-24-12364R1 PLOS ONE Dear Dr. Lu, 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. Muddsar Hameed Academic Editor PLOS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0308561.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 .