PONE-D-24-17906Boosting Happiness in Left-Behind Children: Unveiling the Power of Physical Activity Through Cognitive Reappraisal and Psychological Resilience.PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Li,

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 30 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,

Rinshu Dwivedi, Ph.D.

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. 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: " ext-link-type="uri" xlink:type="simple">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_xcclfuvtxQ".

3. In the online submission form, you indicated that [The data that support the findings of this study are available upon request from the corresponding author. The data are not publicly available due to confidentiality and research ethics.]. 

All PLOS journals now require all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript to be freely available to other researchers, either 1. In a public repository, 2. Within the manuscript itself, or 3. Uploaded as supplementary information.

This policy applies to all data except where public deposition would breach compliance with the protocol approved by your research ethics board. If your data cannot be made publicly available for ethical or legal reasons (e.g., public availability would compromise patient privacy), please explain your reasons on resubmission and your exemption request will be escalated for approval.

4. Your ethics statement should only appear in the Methods section of your manuscript. If your ethics statement is written in any section besides the Methods, please delete it from any other section. 

5. Please include captions for your Supporting Information files at the end of your manuscript, and update any in-text citations to match accordingly. Please see our Supporting Information guidelines for more information: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/supporting-information. 

6. 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.

Additional Editor Comments:

Dear Authors,

The reviewers has given their comments and suggested various points/comments to be addressed. The manuscript is very much relevant in the contemporary scenario and would be a significant edition in the existing literature and policy making . I am sure the suggestions of the reviewers will help the manuscript to improve in both content and quality.

Best Wishes

Dr Rinshu

[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

**********

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: Comments to the Author

Thank you very much for the opportunity to review the article entitled “Boosting Happiness in Left-Behind Children: Unveiling the Power of Physical Activity Through Cognitive Reappraisal and Psychological Resilience.” The authors have employed a robust methodology and provide significant insights into the positive effects of physical activity on mental health in this vulnerable population. The identification of CR and PR as mediators adds depth to our understanding of the mechanisms through which physical activity can enhance well-being. The findings are compelling, and the study has substantial potential. However, several issues need to be addressed:

1. Why did the authors measure subjective well-being through the positive affect of PANAS and the Satisfaction with Life Scale instead of using a comprehensive subjective well-being scale?

2. What was the rationale for using a chain mediation model instead of a parallel mediation analysis?

3. Given that cross-sectional studies are susceptible to cohort effects, how do the authors plan to mitigate these effects?

4. What are the existing theories that link physical activity, cognitive reappraisal, psychological resilience, and subjective well-being in children, particularly left-behind children?

5. What existing theories connect physical activity, cognitive reappraisal, psychological resilience, and subjective well-being in children, particularly those who are left-behind? Could you provide specific theories to enhance the significance of these connections?

6. What are the socio-demographic characteristics of the sample, and how might these factors influence the results?

7. Fifth, although the findings are intriguing, it is crucial to delve into the “why” behind this study and elucidate the significance of the findings. The authors should engage in a discussion regarding the theoretical contributions and practical implications. Without this, readers might be left with a sense of “interesting, but why does it matter“?

8. Due to the employment of psychological scales, students in grades 1-3 were excluded to ensure the data's objectivity and authenticity. Could you elaborate on the rationale behind this decision? Additionally, are there alternative methods that could be used to study student Due to the employment of psychological scales, students in grades 1-3 were excluded to ensure the data's objectivity and authenticity. Could you elaborate on the rationale behind this decision? Additionally, are there alternative methods that could be used to study students in these grades?

9. How have you accounted for cultural factors in your study? Are there elements of cognitive reappraisal, psychological resilience, or physical activity that might be culturally specific to China? Could you elaborate on any culturally specific practices or beliefs related to these constructs in China that might have influenced your findings?

10. A section should be included to address limitations and outline potential avenues for future research. But these sections need to be more closely integrated with the current findings and limitations. Discussing how the limitations specifically influence the results and interpretations will make these sections more meaningful. Future research suggestions should be directly linked to the current study's findings and limitations.

Reviewer #2: The overall subjective wellbeing and happiness of the left behind children to reduce the associated mental stress is one of the critical issues especially in the context of the developing countries and needs necessary exploration. This paper has discussed in detail for the need of study and it investigates the investigates the mediating roles of cognitive reappraisal (CR) and psychological resilience (PR) in the relationship between physical activity (PA) and subjective well-being (SWB) among left-behind children in China. I have certain comments and suggestions which need to be addressed by the authors to make the manuscript more interesting and relevant. The comments are listed as under:

1. The abstract seems fine and well structures. However, the authors need to work a bit on the introduction section. The introduction section is written elaborately and dealing with the important aspects as proposed for the study. However, the authors have mentioned about the subjective wellbeing (SWB). It’s necessary to also explore the gender perspective on the SWB of the children which differs significantly. Also, it would be interesting to know how the one absent parent and the other lacking the capacity for guardianship with the variations in gender also affects the left behind children and in turn their cognitive wellbeing. Adding a paragraph on this would be interesting to underscore the issue in concern. So mention SWB of both the genders in introduction as it’s a matter of concern and the collected data must be having both male and female respondents.

2. Also, Please elaborate which parent has left the child, whether its mother or father by covering the details and its effects on children as both parents have different effects on mental health of left behind children. This paragraph could be added before the PA at page number 11.

3. The literature synthesis is detailed elaborating the details leading towards the hypothesis 1 to 4 and resulted into the conceptual framework. The integration is good however; there are various theories which are the base of the given framework. Though the paper has have covered the theoretical background in the paper, by adding some more studies will make it more robust. Please expand the literature section more elaborately.

4. Methodology is detailed and well written. However giving some details about the regional coverage will ensure that no regional biases have been occurred while conducting the study which is missing. The exclusion behind the 1-3 class students’ needs to be further added with supported studies why it’s not more reliable and valid psychological scale measurement. The authors should elaborate the part. Also, please elaborate the internal consistency correlation and Mc.Donalds omega value of PANAS and SWB scale in the study which needs explanation/elaboration.

5. The SWB of left behind children is explained very well. However all major constructs such as ecological assets apart from the one used in this paper needs to be also elaborated in details so that importance of present studies constructs may be highlighted.

6. The discussion section is good and very well elaborated however, at certain places it lacks the integration, the author’s needs to check the connectivity between the findings and also add some recent studies in similar context where the lack of PA has significantly affected the CR, PR, and SWB.

7. Elaborate the conclusion part further with the policy implications and reliability in the countries of the similar construct.

**********

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: Yes: Dr Sunder Kala Negi

Reviewer #2: Yes: Pallavi Banjare

**********

[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: Comments to the Author.docx

Attachment

Submitted filename: Comments Left behind.docx

Boosting Happiness in Left-Behind Children: Unveiling the Power of Physical Activity Through Cognitive Reappraisal and Psychological Resilience.

PONE-D-24-17906R1

Dear Dr. Li,

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,

Rinshu Dwivedi, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Dear Authors,

I am pleased to inform that the reviewers has made the final comments regarding the manuscript, and recommended the acceptance for the same. I suggest that it can be accepted for further process.

Thanks and Best Wishes

Dr Rinshu

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

Reviewer #2: 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

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: 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

Reviewer #2: 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

Reviewer #2: 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: We are pleased to inform you that your paper, after addressing all suggestions, has been accepted for publication. Congratulations on your successful revision!

Reviewer #2: The authors have incorporated all the suggested changes and the manuscript may be considered. It can be an important contribution in the field of existing literature.

**********

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: Yes: Dr. Sunder Kala Negi

Reviewer #2: No

**********

Attachments

Attachment

Submitted filename: Dear Author.docx