PONE-D-24-19439Which character strengths may build organizational well-being? Insights from an international sample of workersPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. CASALI,

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 considere that the manuscript has merit, but they both also raise some questions, and make some sugestions. We invite authors to address each comment raised by the reviewers, and to revised the manuscript accordingly. 

Please submit your revised manuscript by Sep 16 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,

Paulo Alexandre Soares Moreira, PhD

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. We note that you have indicated that there are restrictions to data sharing for this study. PLOS only allows data to be available upon request if there are legal or ethical restrictions on sharing data publicly. For more information on unacceptable data access restrictions, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-unacceptable-data-access-restrictions. 

Before we proceed with your manuscript, please address the following prompts:

a) If there are ethical or legal restrictions on sharing a de-identified data set, please explain them in detail (e.g., data contain potentially identifying or sensitive patient information, data are owned by a third-party organization, etc.) and who has imposed them (e.g., a Research Ethics Committee or Institutional Review Board, etc.). Please also provide contact information for a data access committee, ethics committee, or other institutional body to which data requests may be sent.

b) If there are no restrictions, please upload the minimal anonymized data set necessary to replicate your study findings to a stable, public repository and provide us with the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers. For a list of recommended repositories, please see

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/recommended-repositories. You also have the option of uploading the data as Supporting Information files, but we would recommend depositing data directly to a data repository if possible.

We will update your Data Availability statement on your behalf to reflect the information you provide.

3. 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. 

[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: Which character strengths may build organizational well-being? Insights from an international sample of workers

The present study analyses character strength (24 strength and a general factor) in relation to well-being (PERMA+4) and satisfaction in a large sample of 5,487 employees. The manuscript quotes the relevant articles and develops toward the 4 research questions posed. Next to zero order correlations also a mediation analysis was performed to see whether PERMA+4 mediates the relation between character strength and life satisfaction.

Regarding the zero order correlations it is not surprising that strengths correlate more highly with the PERMA total score than life satisfaction does. This could be due to both higher reliability (due to higher number of items) and broader content (which reduces the number of low correlations. So the statement that “we found that 21 of the 24 character strengths were more strongly correlated with PERMA+4 than with life satisfaction” needs to be reevaluated. Likewise, the authors should consider using strength and PERMA in a normal regression analysis to acknowledge and that you have cross-sectional data. You say that you need a longitudinal design but as long as you don’t have one it is safer to avoid mediation analysis. Maybe predictors (and an interaction) would also yield interesting results.

A few minor questions:

You talk about SWB (which included life satisfaction, and affect balance) but you only measure satisfaction with life? Why not including positive and negative affect as well? Or avoid SWB altogether?

You use the term “building block” often, even “building blocks of the building blocks”. Can you elaborate what building block implies or means. As far as I know it is not a technical term in psychology, nor a widely used expression with a clear meaning.

You write “It is historically distinct from psychological well-being (PWB), which instead represents the eudaimonic type of well-being, i.e., a focus on growth and optimal psychological functioning, with a greater attention to the interpersonal dimension (4).” SWB was there before PWB; therefore it is misleading or at least imprecise to say it Is “historically distinct”.

You write “In both models, life satisfaction (modelled as a latent variable) was the dependent variable, and Positive Functioning at Work (also modelled as a unidimensional latent variable) was the mediator.”

“Table 5. Results of the first path model (M1), with character strengths as predictors, Positive

Functioning at Work as mediator, and life satisfaction as dependent variable“ Why did you nt consider work satisfaction?

Reviewer #2: Dear Authors,

The article presents a relevant theme, given that the construct of well-being has been the object of studies and research aimed at understanding the phenomenon and, consequently, subsidizing the construction of public policies, as well as organizational policies and guidelines, in order to favours people's happiness in various dimensions of their lives. Research on the PERMA model is still scarce, which gives the study an innovative character.

The article presents a number of positive points, namely:

-The title fully corresponds to the study presented, in addition to presenting an adequate number of words.

-The abstract presents the required elements, such as objectives, methodology, scope, sample, main results and conclusions.

-The introduction denotes conceptual elements necessary for the formulation of the problem, as well as evidencing the objectives of the study. Elements that show the relevance of the subject addressed are also presented. This paper presents a review of the current literature.

- The large international sample.

-The methodology is consistent with the study's proposal. Statistical analyses are appropriate to the proposed objectives.

However, it is recommended that authors make some changes to the article for publication.

The suggestions for change/improvement are as follows:

- In the introduction, Table 1(Overview of the presented well-being theories). and Table 2 (The VIA classification. Adapted from Peterson 156 and Seligman ((2), pp. 29-30) should be removed.

- In the introduction, between lines 135 to 154, authors must present the information in a narrative form and not by topics.

- In the introduction, it would be relevant for the authors to present the concept/perspective of organizational well-being inherent to their research;

- The ethical procedures of the investigation must be better explained.

- In the results there is some repetition between the data presented in Table 4. (Correlations of character strengths, virtues, and character with PERMA+4) and the text between Line 281 and Line 301. Thus, it is suggested to synthesize the text between Line 281 to Line 301 and only the most relevant correlations are mentioned in the text.

- Authors should present the limitations inherent to their research.

- In the discussion, it is important that the authors present the implications of their research for the development of policies and practices that promote organizational well-being.

In general, I would like to highlight the interest of the work submitted for publication and I congratulate the authors on their work. However, I believe that these changes are necessary to improve its final quality and make it attractive to readers.

**********

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: 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.

Which character strengths may build organizational well-being? Insights from an international sample of workers

PONE-D-24-19439R1

Dear Dr. CASALI,

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,

Paulo Alexandre Soares Moreira, PhD

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 #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: thank you for addressing all my concerns in a satisfying way. i have no further questions. i will be of interest to readers.

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

**********

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

**********