PONE-D-24-03060Romantic relationship configurations and their correlates among cisgender sexual minority persons: A latent class analysisPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Blais,

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 May 20 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,

Ning Cai, Ph.D.

Section 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 include your full ethics statement in the ‘Methods’ section of your manuscript file. In your statement, please include the full name of the IRB or ethics committee who approved or waived your study, as well as whether or not you obtained informed written or verbal consent. If consent was waived for your study, please include this information in your statement as well.

Additional Editor Comments:

The reviewers critique a manuscript on monogamous arrangements among LGBTQ individuals, acknowledging the manuscript's clarity but questioning its novelty and the clarity of its analyses. They highlight issues with the presentation of results and the justification for using adjusted p-values. Recommendations include performing one-way ANOVAs and providing clear reasons for the inclusion of additional variables. The reviewers also suggest the manuscript should consider biological explanations for gender differences in monogamy preferences and question the aggregation of diverse ethnic groups into a single BIPOC category.

[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: Partly

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: No

**********

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: No

Reviewer #3: No

**********

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: The main claim of the paper concerns the need to investigate intra-relational characteristics that go beyond relationship structure or agreement. The claim is significant because highlights the importance of taking into account relationships in their complexity beyond their agreements of (non)exclusivity and not taking monogamy for granted, especially for sexual minority individuals. The analysis supports the claim.

The literature cited is sufficiently extensive, however I would add some other recent contributions for the study of CNM such as the special section in the journal Archives of Sexual Behavior (Hamilton et al., 2021) and the special issue focusing on parenting practices published for Sexualities (Klesse et al., 2022). In reference to the intersection between plurisexual orientations and non-monogamies, other studies have highlighted how the exploration of plurisexuality often runs parallel with the exploration of consensual non-monogamy, or the exploration of non-monogamy is an incentive for the exploration of plurisexuality (and not just viceversa) (see Braida, 2021 in E. Maliepaard & R. Baumgartner (eds.), Bisexuality in Europe).

The manuscript is well organized and written clearly enough to be accessible to non-specialists. I only recommend reviewing the use of parentheses, because several times in the text they are opened and not closed, or there are double parentheses.

The methodology and data analysis performed are explained in sufficient detail. Data are held on secure institutional servers and they can be consulted upon request.

Reviewer #2: Review of the article: Romantic relationship configurations and their correlates among cisgender sexual minority persons: A latent class analysis

The article entitled “Romantic relationship configurations and their correlates among cisgender sexual minority persons: A latent class analysis” presents the results of a latent class analysis (LCA) on a LGBTQ+ sample from Quebec, Canada, depicting the comparison between monogamous and non-monogamous relationships in terms of various characteristics. Data were drawn from an online sample of 1338 cisgender sexual minority participants. LCAs revealed five distinct relationship configurations: Formalized monogamy, Free monogamy, Monogamous considering alternatives, Formalized open relationship, and Free consensual non-monogamous. Further analyses that compared several sociodemographic variables between these classes showed that cisgender women were more likely to engage in monogamous relationships than cisgender men, who were overrepresented in open relationships. Though groups did not differ significantly in most well-being indicators, lower levels of perceived partner support were observed in both free monogamous and free CNM relationships.

The article is clearly written, with a good number of up-to-date articles cited, and presents analyses conducted with accuracy and in accordance with best standards. The selection of variables used to perform LCA is reasonable. The sample size is large and has a great age range. The results are presented clearly and are understandable to both readers familiar with the topic and novices. The discussion is well suited to the results, and Authors discuss each of the results with reference to relevant literature. Overall, I think that the study is a valuable addition to the ever-expanding knowledge of non-monogamy, especially because it presents a quantitative measurement, in contrast to the large number of studies in this field using mainly qualitative methods.

Though, I have a small number of comments to which I’d like Authors to refer:

1. The authors conducted the study on a sample of LGBTQ+ people, but only on the cisgender group. Information about excluding transgender individuals (N = 190) and transferring their sample to another study is provided, but in my opinion, this step requires justification. At no point do the authors argue for reasons for such action, for example, by citing literature that shows that transgender individuals differ significantly from cisgender individuals in terms of relationships characteristics and other variables included in the study (if such literature exists). It would probably be valuable to also include this sample in this study and compare the results to those of the cisgender group. Otherwise, more justification of the exclusion of transgender individuals should be made.

2. Authors stated that “Polyamorous individuals were instructed to respond with their longest relationship in mind”. It is a common problem, namely, how to conduct research on CNM people to measure across all their partners. It may be problematic not only due to the complexity of such measurement, but also because biased responses by CNM individuals who could respond according to the anchoring heuristic or average their ratings, which would not provide adequate results. This comment is in no way intended to be a criticism of the authors, and I believe they made the right decision. While this is not absolutely necessary, it might be a valuable addition to have a brief discussion of this topic somewhere within the article. However, if the authors think otherwise, please ignore this comment.

3. Related to my comment 3, I think the concept of primary and secondary partners can be brought into the discussion. As polyamorous participants probably responded in relation to their primary partners (their longest relationship), it might result in some specific patterns of results that might differ if they had answered with another relationship in mind. See, e.g., https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0177841, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-018-1286-4, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-015-0658-2, as examples of differences between behaviors toward primary vs. secondary partners. I think if the authors discussed this issue, it would be a valuable addition to the article.

4. The authors did not make clear distinction between individuals in open relationships and people involved in swinging-type relationships. They were probably clustered together in one group. Though it is now not possible to divide this group into two, and I also think it would not be necessary, I think that a mere mention of such clustering may be added.

5. Related to the sentence, “(…) our results suggest that wellbeing cannot be solely explained by the simple distinction between monogamous and nonmonogamous relationships, but rather should consider other factors that go beyond relationship agreement”, I think authors may find interesting the idea of compersion, which is a common topic related to non-monogamy, especially polyamory. Some recent studies suggest that it may be an important factor in increasing relationship satisfaction in CNM communities. See: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-08956-5_2472-1, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-022-02333-4, https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-2838247/v1 (full disclaimer: I am one of the authors of one of these works). The Authors may decide if this topic is suitable for mentioning in their Discussion section.

Despite minor issues mentioned above, I think that in overall the article is suitable for publication, presents well-performed analyses and interesting and novel results. Below I present the checklist of PLOS ONE criteria that articles may satisfy before publication with my short opinion:

1. The study presents the results of original research. YES

2. Results reported have not been published elsewhere. YES

3. Experiments, statistics, and other analyses are performed to a high technical standard and are described in sufficient detail. YES

4. Conclusions are presented in an appropriate fashion and are supported by the data. YES

5. The article is presented in an intelligible fashion and is written in standard English. YES

6. The research meets all applicable standards for the ethics of experimentation and research integrity. YES

7. The article adheres to appropriate reporting guidelines and community standards for data availability. NO (THE ACCESS TO DATA IS ON REQUEST)

Reviewer #3: This manuscript contains a cross-sectional study utilizing questionnaire methods to assess the various types of monogamous arrangements and their correlates. The manuscript is well written and I recommend that it be considered for publication. One general hesitation is that I don’t see what we can learn from this paper that is of novel interest to the field. Most of this appears to be consistent with what we already knew about the variations in monogamous relationships among LGBTQ individuals. Furthermore, I am a bit concerned about the way the analyses are conducted and reported, and these shortcomings must be addressed before this manuscript can be deemed publishable.

The authors claimed that their results showed null effects for the emotional and social well-being measures across various monogamy arrangements. But the results are presented in a confusing way—in some cases because the exact p-values are not given. For instance, for social well-being the adjusted p-value is .09, which I interpret as non-significant, but the p-value for emotional well-being is <.005, which is not an exact value but I interpret as statistically significant, and the authors demarcate statistically significant coefficients in that row using asterisks. To then conclude that “no significant differences were found among the five classes in terms of emotional, psychological, and social well-being reported by the participants” seems confusing and contradictory.

My second objection to the analyses as written is that the authors reported an “adjusted” set of p-values in the final column which they report in terms of a simultaneous regression model with demographic factors included. I am not sure why the authors made this analytic decision and they do not provide any explanation or justification for this. Why include age in this “adjusted” analysis? Because the authors did not preregister their analyses, it is possible that they added on these extra variables into the regression model after running an initial set of analyses. I am also not sure whether this is the technically correct use of the term “adjusted” which typically refers to a family-wise error rate correction. All of this confusion must be remedied.

The authors should report a one way analysis of variance (ANOVA) on the 5 classes of monogamy variations for each outcome variable. If they want to report an additional duplicate set of ACNOVAs with the other variables (e.g., age) included, they can do this, but not without a compelling justification for why those variables should be included. The authors should clearly and consistently report statistically significant findings in their tables and in their text, with family-wise error rate corrections where appropriate.

Regarding gender, it may be, as the authors contend, that lesbian women gravitate toward monogamy more than gay men because of “societal censure” that women face, and their true inclinations would be toward increased promiscuity, but this is being suppressed. This is certainly possible. However, another possibility that the authors neglect to mention is that there is a biological underpinning that motivates men towards greater sexual promiscuity compared to women, and this is true across sexual orientations. Heterosexual and gay men each have more positive attitudes toward promiscuous sexual behaviors compared to heterosexual and lesbian women, and the former also score higher on sociosexual orientation than the latter. In addition, the two citations following the authors’ social constructionist explanation do not appear to show evidence in support of this claim. One is an encyclopedia entry and the other is a study about attitudes toward monogamy in which the authors claim that “lesbians give more importance to monogamy but show less interest in starting a long-term relationship.” In any case, the authors’ preferred explanation may be correct but they should at least mention the alternative explanation of a biologically mediated difference between men and women in their sexual expression.

Minor point: I don’t understand why the authors lumped all non-white racial categories together into a BIPOC category. Black, Hispanic, Asian, and Native American populations belong to separate social and ethnic categories.

**********

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: Klara Austeja Buczel

Reviewer #3: 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.

Romantic relationship configurations and their correlates among LGBTQ+ persons: A latent class analysis

PONE-D-24-03060R1

Dear Dr. Blais,

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,

Ning Cai, Ph.D.

Section Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Please refer to the reviewers' comments when preparing the final version.

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: No

**********

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: (No Response)

Reviewer #2: The authors responded sufficiently to all my comments. I recommend the manuscript for publication.

I have one very small comment as the last one - literature item No. 91 (Buczel et al., 2023) refers to the preprint, while the article was officially published this year. Authors may change this citation according to this one below:

91. Buczel KA, Szyszka PD, Mara I. Exploring Compersion: A Study on Polish Consensually

Non-Monogamous Individuals and Adaptation of the COMPERSe Questionnaire. Arch Sex Behav. 2024 Jul 1. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-024-02930-5

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

**********