PONE-D-24-21184Joint association of sedentary behaviors and physical activity domains with depression in Korean adults: Cross-sectional study using four biennial surveys (2016–2022)PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Park,

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 Sep 22 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,

Rashid Menhas, PhD

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

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

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

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

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

2. We note that the grant information you provided in the ‘Funding Information’ and ‘Financial Disclosure’ sections do not match. 

When you resubmit, please ensure that you provide the correct grant numbers for the awards you received for your study in the ‘Funding Information’ section.

3. We note that you have included the phrase “data not shown” in your manuscript. Unfortunately, this does not meet our data sharing requirements. PLOS does not permit references to inaccessible data. We require that authors provide all relevant data within the paper, Supporting Information files, or in an acceptable, public repository. Please add a citation to support this phrase or upload the data that corresponds with these findings to a stable repository (such as Figshare or Dryad) and provide and URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers that may be used to access these data. Or, if the data are not a core part of the research being presented in your study, we ask that you remove the phrase that refers to these data.

[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: Partly

**********

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: The article topic is very interesting and explores the Joint association of sedentary behaviors and physical activity domains with depression in Korean adults: Cross-sectional study using four biennial surveys (2016–2022). The scholar appears to possess a reasonable level of research temperament and knowledge of her/his area of study and seems comfortable with the subject understanding. However, I deem it appropriate to mention some major observations about different dimensions of the work and, therefore, recommend the following changes to be made before the decision.

Abstract.

• Sometimes written as an afterthought, the abstract is of extreme importance as in many instances this section is what is initially previewed by readers to determine if the remainder of the paper is worth reading. This is the author's opportunity to draw the reader into the study and entice them to read the rest of the article.

• The abstract is a summary of the study and allows the readers to get a glance at what the contents of the article include.

• Writing an abstract is rather challenging as being brief, accurate, and concise are requisite.

• The headings and structure for an abstract are usually provided in the instructions for authors.

Introduction and Review of Literature

• The introduction is one of the more difficult portions of the manuscript to write. Past studies are used to set the stage or provide the reader with information regarding the necessity of the

represented project.

For an introduction to work properly, the reader must feel that the research question is clear, concise, and worthy of study.

• A competent introduction should include at least four key concepts: 1) the significance of the topic, the information gap in the available literature associated with the topic, 3) a literature review in support of the key questions, and 4) subsequently developed purposes/objectives.

Methods

• Initially a brief paragraph should explain the overall procedures and study design. The methods section should clearly describe the specific design of the study and provide a clear

and concise description of the procedures that were performed. The purpose of sufficient detail in the methods section is so that an appropriately trained person would be able to replicate your experiments.

• There should be complete transparency when describing the study

• A clear methods section should contain the following information: 1) the population and equipment used in the study, 2) how the population and equipment were prepared and what was done during the study, 3) the protocol used, 4) the outcomes and how they were measured, 5) the methods used for data analysis.

Result and Discussion

• It should state the impact of your results compared with recent work and relate it to the problem or question you posed in your introduction. Ensure claims are backed up by evidence and explain any complex arguments.

• Writing for the thesis can be a challenging yet satisfying endeavor.

• The ability to examine, relate, and interlink evidence, as well as to provide a peer-reviewed, disseminated product of your research labor can be rewarding.

• This is for interpretation of the key results and to highlight the novelty and significance of the work.

However, the authors are advised to address the following issues before the final submission and highlight in red for double checking.

• There are certain vague and redundant expressions.

• Incorrect use of punctuation marks has been observed. It is compulsory to update the Literature review and discussion section and cite these studies to improve the quality of the literature review and discussion.

In introduction/ literature review section and discussion section have serious flows, authors are advised to follow above comments to update these sections very carefully and cite these papers in these sections to improve the quality of this manuscript. All revisions should be highlighted in red for double checking.

1. https://doi.org/10.2147/PRBM.S441395

2. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpubh.2023.1252157

3. https://doi.org/10.2147/PRBM.S405273

4. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.667461

5. https://doi.org/10.2147/RMHP.S258660

6. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.614770

7. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.933974

8. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.948061

9. https://doi.org/10.2147/PRBM.S441395

10. https://doi.org/10.2147/PRBM.S369020

• A careful proofreading is required.

Reviewer #2: The purpose of this study was to investigate the combined associations of Sedentary Behavior and Physical Activity domains with depression. This cross-sectional research study included 21,416 adults older than 20 years and

utilized biennial data from the Korea National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey waves 7 to 9 (2016–2022). SB was assessed using daily sitting or reclining hours, defined as ≥10 hours per day. PA was evaluated using the Global Physical Activity Questionnaire (GPAQ), including occupational physical activity (OPA), leisure-time physical activity (LTPA), and transportation-related physical activity (TRPA). In addition, Depressive symptoms were measured using the Patient Health Questionnaire-9, with a cutoff score of 10 indicating depression. Joint associations were explored by combining SB and each PA into four levels.

Results indicated that SB and OPA were associated with an increased risk of depression. LTPA was

associated with decreased risk only in men, whereas TRPA showed no significant association. In brief, this study suggests that OPA(+), LTPA(–), and TRPA(–) have a synergistic effect on increasing depression risk when concurrently exposed to SB. Encouraging LTPA, minimizing rigorous OPA, and reducing SB may contribute to reducing depressive symptoms.

I would like to than authors for this interesting study. I believe this is an interesting study and it has a merit for this journal. Here is my feedback: This study needs a strong introduction, discussion and conclusion sections with up to date literature review (2022 and above). In addition, reliability and validity of tests and measurements should be reported. In brief, this study has a good design and sample size. However, some parts of this research need improvement. I look forward to seeing edited version of this manuscript. Best regards.

**********

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: Ferman Konukman

**********

[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.

Joint association of sedentary behavior and physical activity domains with depression in Korean adults: Cross-sectional study combining four biennial surveys(2016–2022)

PONE-D-24-21184R1

Dear Dr. Park,

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,

Rashid Menhas, PhD

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

NA

Reviewers' comments: