PONE-D-24-41718Unveiling the Psychological Traits of Multi-Marathoners: Insights from TIPI Personality Trait AnalysisPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Lundy,

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.

Both reviewers recognized some positive aspects of your manuscript. However, in addition to some lacking references and problems with the visibility of the figures, there are two major concerns that your revision needs to address in order for the manuscript to be accepted:1. The lack of theoretical foundation - the theoretical framework needs to be more developed and include some potentially relevant theories such as Goal Setting theory2. The issue related with the measurement of Big Five Personality traits - that is using its short form that has not been validated before. This could be tackled by using the longer form on a smaller target population, or by validating the short form on any population. I recognize that doing that may require more time, but if possible (and you can ask for the extension of time needed for the revision), I would recommend you to do that. Alternatively, you need to provide a very strong rebuttal regarding this issue.3. You also need to address all minor suggestions of the reviewer.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Dec 02 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,

Srebrenka Letina, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. When completing the data availability statement of the submission form, you indicated that you will make your data available on acceptance. We strongly recommend all authors decide on a data sharing plan before acceptance, as the process can be lengthy and hold up publication timelines. Please note that, though access restrictions are acceptable now, your entire data will need to be made freely accessible if your manuscript is accepted for publication. This policy applies to all data except where public deposition would breach compliance with the protocol approved by your research ethics board. If you are unable to adhere to our open data policy, please kindly revise your statement to explain your reasoning and we will seek the editor's input on an exemption. Please be assured that, once you have provided your new statement, the assessment of your exemption will not hold up the peer review process.

3. Please upload a new copy of Figures 1 and 2 as the detail is not clear. Please follow the link for more information: https://blogs.plos.org/plos/2019/06/looking-good-tips-for-creating-your-plos-figures-graphics/" https://blogs.plos.org/plos/2019/06/looking-good-tips-for-creating-your-plos-figures-graphics/

[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: General comments:

The study presents a robust justification and a well-structured background. The objectives are clearly articulated and the design of the study is commendable. The methodology is thoroughly detailed, and the results derived from it are grounded in reliable instruments and rigorous statistical procedures.

Introduction:

The introduction is structured, delineating the existing knowledge gap that the current study aims to address. This articulation serves to elucidate the study's purpose in a coherent and scholarly manner.

Authors may benefit from further discussion regarding the application of both the Big Five Personality Model and Goal Setting Theory. Recent advancements in the understanding of human behavior indicate that various other theories and constructs can also elucidate behaviors related to physical activity. It remains ambiguous to me what substantial value is derived from involving 593 participants in a questionnaire grounded solely in these theories.

Additionally, there are several paragraphs that lack references. It is important to consider the necessity of citations throughout the background section.

Methods:

Methods are clear and allow the study to be repeated.

Concerns arise regarding the utilization of a questionnaire lacking prior validation for the specific population and language. While the presentation of the internal consistency and reliability of the survey is an important step, it concurrently underscores the shortcomings of the employed measures.

Results:

Despite the unsatisfactory methodology employed in obtaining the results, the findings successfully fulfill the objectives of the study.

Reviewer #2: This article presents solid content, is well-conceived, and properly structured and executed.

It offers highly relevant information about the personality traits of multi-marathon runners.

The data collection is extensive, with 593 responses, considering that this is a limited population, such as that of multi-marathon runners.

The statistical analyses are appropriate and very well conducted. They are carried out with an excellent level of detail, including the Bonferroni correction, which is not always performed.

Some results may be unexpected, such as in the dimension of openness to experience. However, for the rest of the results, the expected outcomes are essentially met.

In any case, the work provides an interesting perspective on the psychological characterization of multi-marathon runners. This is of great interest for practical intervention in counseling and psychological coaching for these athletes.

The main challenge of the work, as I understand it, lies in the use of the TIPI instrument to evaluate the Big Five personality dimensions. Although it is a sufficiently standardized and widely accepted tool by the scientific community in personality psychology.

In conclusion, this is a well-conceived and properly executed scientific study, offering relevant contributions to both the theory and practice of sports psychology.

**********

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:  Hugo Vieira Pereira

Reviewer #2: Yes:  Vanesa García-Peñas

**********

[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.

PONE-D-24-41718R1Unveiling the Psychological Traits of Multi-Marathoners: Insights from TIPI Personality Trait Analysis

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Lundy,

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.

Two expert reviewers and I have read your paper, and we recognize that the manuscript addresses an interesting research question and that your revision has responded to the specific concerns raised. However, one of the reviewers has expressed concerns about the general scientific value and quality of the paper, which, in my opinion, also undermines the manuscript's value in its current form. Unfortunately, the reviewer did not provide specific suggestions for improving the paper, so I would like to suggest some avenues you might pursue to add the necessary value:

Introduction and Literature Review: Provide a more detailed review of the previous literature on athletes and Big Five personality traits, with a focus on how and why the personality profile of multi-marathoners may theoretically differ, and summarize what empirical studies have shown so far. A systematic analysis of previous research findings on this topic would greatly enhance the quality of your paper.

Research Aim: The aim of the research is adequately addressed but is rather simplistic, which misses an opportunity for more substantive contributions. I suggest incorporating additional research questions in both the literature review and analysis. For example, would it be feasible to include latent class analysis to examine variations within the population of interest? If possible, can you include the whole sample and other variables to expand your research questions?

Statistical Analysis: While the statistical analysis addresses your aims, it is very basic by current standards of scientific rigor and novelty. I recommend including permutation-based methods to complement your research goals, along with non-parametric tests. You also investigate goal-setting behavior and report correlations with data from a previous observational study with a larger sample. However, the measures used in that comparison are not described in the Methods section, and the analysis remains highly descriptive. Also, the analysis needs to be better integrated with the rest of the paper. A more robust approach and statistical modeling, possibly including the entire sample, should be considered.

Presentation of Results: The reporting of results should be improved, for instance, statements like “p < 0.00002 (extremely significant)” (line 309) are neither standard nor adequate. Consider using figures to visualize your findings.

Methods section: There is no mention of missing data or how it was handled, nor is it clear if any additional data was collected in your study. Describe all the measures of all variables.

Study Limitations: Include a more critical and detailed overview of the limitations of your research design, particularly in assessing only the Big Five personality traits and main demographic variables without controlling for potential confounding variables.

Suggestions for Further Research: More substantive suggestions for theoretical development and future research would be beneficial.

Overall, I suggest a major reframing of the whole manuscript.

Only if your next revision can significantly improve on all those suggested elements - and possibly some other aspects that could provide the needed value, it will be considered for publishing.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Dec 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,

Srebrenka Letina, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

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: (No Response)

**********

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: My concerns have been adequately addressed. However, I believe that the process could have been conducted more effectively from the outset, which may have enhanced its scientific value and contributed to a more rigorous outcome.

Reviewer #2: This article presents solid content, is well-conceived, and properly structured and executed.

It offers highly relevant information about the personality traits of multi-marathon runners.

The data collection is extensive, with 593 responses, considering that this is a limited population, such as that of multi-marathon runners.

The statistical analyses are appropriate and very well conducted. They are carried out with an excellent level of detail, including the Bonferroni correction, which is not always performed.

Some results may be unexpected, such as in the dimension of openness to experience. However, for the rest of the results, the expected outcomes are essentially met.

In any case, the work provides an interesting perspective on the psychological characterization of multi-marathon runners. This is of great interest for practical intervention in counseling and psychological coaching for these athletes.

The main challenge of the work, as I understand it, lies in the use of the TIPI instrument to evaluate the Big Five personality dimensions. Although it is a sufficiently standardized and widely accepted tool by the scientific community in personality psychology.

In conclusion, this is a well-conceived and properly executed scientific study, offering relevant contributions to both the theory and practice of sports psychology.

**********

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:  Hugo Vieira Pereira

Reviewer #2: Yes:  Vanesa García-Peñas

**********

[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.

PONE-D-24-41718R2Unveiling the Psychological Traits of Multi-Marathoners: Insights from TIPI Personality Trait AnalysisPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Lundy,

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. A minor revision of the manuscript is required, by addressing the comments made by the new reviewer (reviewer 3, since one of the previous reviewers was not available for this round). In the next revision, in your response to reviewers, explain in detail how you addressed each of the seven points made by reviewer 3.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Mar 26 2025 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,

Srebrenka Letina, Ph.D.

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.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

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 #2: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #3: 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 #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Partly

**********

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

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: 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 #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: 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 #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: 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 #2: This article presents solid content, is well-conceived, and properly structured and executed.

It offers highly relevant information about the personality traits of multi-marathon runners.

The data collection is extensive, with 593 responses, considering that this is a limited population, such as that of multi-marathon runners.

The statistical analyses are appropriate and very well conducted. They are carried out with an excellent level of detail, including the Bonferroni correction, which is not always performed.

Some results may be unexpected, such as in the dimension of openness to experience. However, for the rest of the results, the expected outcomes are essentially met.

In any case, the work provides an interesting perspective on the psychological characterization of multi-marathon runners. This is of great interest for practical intervention in counseling and psychological coaching for these athletes.

The main challenge of the work, as I understand it, lies in the use of the TIPI instrument to evaluate the Big Five personality dimensions. Although it is a sufficiently standardized and widely accepted tool by the scientific community in personality psychology.

In conclusion, this is a well-conceived and properly executed scientific study, offering relevant contributions to both the theory and practice of sports psychology.

Reviewer #3: Dear Authors,

Your reasoning and course of action is correct, but there are some issues in the reporting of the article that need to be improved, and I will strictly address them in abstraction from the strengths.

1. change the keywords to other than in the title to ensure that your work is more recognizable in the science databases;

2. abbreviate the abstract to relevant issues, the current form is overloaded;

3. the Introduction should be abbreviated by not capturing the cited research, but aptly formulating the content without embellishments;

4. result please improve so that they are only perceptive sentences;

5. explanations of the abbreviations used should be added under the tables;

6. there is a multiplicity of subsections, which should be arranged in Discussion, Limitation, Directions for further research, Practical implications;

7. Conclusions are convictions about the veracity of your results, not a summary. This should be corrected.

8. References should be at most 10 years back, i.e. 2015. This should be corrected. I can suggest known papers on research on personality traits in sports. Consider referring to:

doi: 10.1519/JSC.0000000000002376

doi: 10.1016/j.paid.2020.109973

doi: 10.1002/brb3.2145

doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1284378

doi: 10.15561/20755279.2024.0302

doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2024.1428107

**********

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 #2: Yes:  Vanesa García-Peñas

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.

Unveiling the Psychological Traits of Multi-Marathoners: Insights from TIPI Personality Trait Analysis

PONE-D-24-41718R3

Dear Dr. Lundy,

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,

Srebrenka Letina, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

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 #3: 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 #3: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #3: 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 #3: 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 #3: 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 #3: Dear Authors,

thank you for the corrections made and the answers provided.

Your work has gained significantly in quality.

I recommend the article for publication.

**********

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 #3: No

**********