The relationship between social safeness and pleasure and resilience levels among university athletes: A descriptive study

Veysel Temel; Nurhan Hümeyra Özçelik

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0315889

Peer Review History

Original SubmissionJuly 11, 2024
9 Sep 2024 Decision Letter - Diogo Manuel Teixeira Monteiro, Editor PONE-D-24-27311The Relationship between Social Safeness and Pleasure and Resilience Levels among University Athletes: A Descriptive StudyPLOS ONE Dear Dr. Temel, 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 Oct 24 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, Diogo Manuel Teixeira Monteiro, Ph.D. Academic Editor PLOS ONE Journal Requirements: 1. When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf 2. Please provide additional details regarding participant consent. In the ethics statement in the Methods and online submission information, please ensure that you have specified (a) whether consent was informed and (b) what type you obtained (for instance, written or verbal, and if verbal, how it was documented and witnessed). If your study included minors, state whether you obtained consent from parents or guardians. If the need for consent was waived by the ethics committee, please include this information. If you are reporting a retrospective study of medical records or archived samples, please ensure that you have discussed whether all data were fully anonymized before you accessed them and/or whether the IRB or ethics committee waived the requirement for informed consent. If patients provided informed written consent to have data from their medical records used in research, please include this information Once you have amended this/these statement(s) in the Methods section of the manuscript, please add the same text to the “Ethics Statement” field of the submission form (via “Edit Submission”). For additional information about PLOS ONE ethical requirements for human subjects research, please refer to http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-human-subjects-research. 3. Please provide a complete Data Availability Statement in the submission form, ensuring you include all necessary access information or a reason for why you are unable to make your data freely accessible. If your research concerns only data provided within your submission, please write "All data are in the manuscript and/or supporting information files" as your Data Availability Statement. 4. 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. 5. Please include captions for your Supporting Information files at the end of your manuscript, and update any in-text citations to match accordingly. Please see our Supporting Information guidelines for more information: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/supporting-information. [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: 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: No ****** 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: Thank you very much for the opportunity to review the manuscript “The Relationship between Social Safeness and Pleasure and Resilience Levels among University Athletes: A Descriptive Study”. The study aimed examines the correlation between social safeness and pleasure and resilience among university students engaged in sports. The topic is relevant and current, and the article is, overall, well written. I leave some aspects that deserve to be considered to improve the manuscript: Abstract The aim is not just to “examine the correlation between social safeness and pleasure and resilience among university students engaged in sports”. Let me remind you that the sample is not just made up of athletes. Furthermore, the main objective seems to me to have been to characterize Social Safeness and Pleasure and Resilience Levels in a sample of university students, including a comparison according to age, gender and sports practice. Introduction • The introduction is based on literature that is several years old (most of it more than 15 years old), and there is a need to update the sources with more recent information. • Despite developing the main themes and variables using the literature, the relevance of studying this topic is unclear, especially in the context of the university student population? What particular characteristics do they have? • The relationship between the variables is not substantiated in the introduction, which would be very important given the aim of the study. Materials and Methods • With regard to the participants, it would be important for the authors to report more information about the sports practice of the sample members. Formal or informal practice? Do they take part in competitions? What was the criterion for choosing the groups (Sometimes, Usually, Often, Always). This information is particularly important in the context of university students, where sports practice is often limited. • Since a comparison will be made on the basis of gender, it is important to present each group (men and women) in more detail, particularly in terms of average age and sports practice variables. • The data collection instruments are duly presented and validated. However, with regard to the Resilience Scale, the sub-dimensions should be clearly presented (including an example of an item in each one). • It would be important to have more information about the data collection process, in particular how long it lasted, at what point in the school year it took place (beginning, middle, end, at assessment times). • Statistical analysis procedures are missing. Results • Overall, the results are presented clearly and coherently; • Line185: This table is table 3? Please identify. • Table 8 ou Table 7? Discussion • The discussion should be reorganized, making it clearer and simpler. At many points (particularly at the beginning of the discussion) it seems to be an extension of the introduction. • Lines 439-444 is a repetition (mistake…). • The results of the relationship between the scores obtained in the dimension of the social security and enjoyment scale and the test scores of the resilience scale have not been discussed. I would remind you that this was the main objective of the study. • What are the practical implications of this work? Not presented. • Limitations and suggestions for future studies are not presented. The formatting should be revised (Example: line 429). Reviewer #2: Thank you very much for the opportunity to review the manuscript ‘The Relationship between Social Safeness and Pleasure and Resilience Levels among University Athletes: A Descriptive Study’. The study aims to analyse the correlation between social security and levels of pleasure and resilience among university students who play sport. I'll leave some comments that I think are pertinent to improving the manuscript: Line 28: The authors can mention which sport they are referring to. Line 29: They could also mention the age of the youngest and oldest participant. Line 31: If the aim of the study is to examine correlation, why would the authors use t-tests and ANOVA? Line 30: The Questionnaire measures Social Safeness and Pleasure and Resilience Scales) Line 36 and 37: Something seems to be missing. Line 41-44: I don't think it's fundamental to the study. It seems to me that the term sport is not well defined. It might help to distinguish it from the terms physical activity and physical exercise. The definition of the variables under study could be better defined, as well as their relationship with sport. Furthermore, what is the relationship with the population under study? What gap did the authors find in the literature that the article aims to fill? What is the real importance of the study? Line 94-95: How can a study that has carried out correlations identify interventions that can improve the variables under study? Line 107 and 110: After all, not all athletes play sport. Line 121: Reading the abstract, it seems that the authors have used an instrument that assesses all the variables. Line 123: What is the only dimension that the scale assesses? Aren't Social Safeness and Pleasure two dimensions? What are the possible answers? Line 139: Very poor section. The authors could give the reader more information about this process. Line 164: I still think that Security is one dimension and Pleasure is another. The authors only present an average value. I may not be understanding the instrument, so please ask the authors to clarify. Line 167: The sub-dimensions do not correspond to those previously presented. Line 179: Now I understand why the statistical tests were carried out. However, this is the first time the authors have mentioned this distinction between genders. It had never been raised before. Line 199: What is the reason for dividing the groups in this way? What is the theoretical rationale? Line 258: The table is not perceptible. The discussion is extensive and difficult to read. No limitations or future recommendations are presented. There is no need to present the objectives in the conclusion section. There is no mention of correlations in the conclusion. ****** 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. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0315889.r001
Revision 1
24 Oct 2024 Author Response Response to Reviewer 1 1. "The discussion section should be clearer and simpler. Many points (especially at the beginning of the discussion) seem like an extension of the introduction section." Response: Thank you for your feedback. I have revised the discussion section to make it clearer and simpler. I have restructured it to separate it more distinctly from the introduction, ensuring that the findings are discussed in relation to the literature and the study’s contributions are highlighted more clearly. 2. "Lines 439-444 are a repetition (error...)." Response: I apologize for the repetition. The redundant lines have been removed, and unnecessary repetitions have been eliminated. 3. "The relationship between the scores on the Social Safeness and Pleasure scales and the Resilience scale has not been discussed. I remind you that this is the core aim of the study." Response: Thank you for pointing this out. I have expanded the discussion to include the relationship between the Social Safeness and Pleasure scales and the Resilience scale. This relationship is now examined in detail, highlighting its significance to the core aim of the study. 4. "What are the practical implications of this study? It has not been presented." Response: I have added a section on the practical implications of the study. This includes how the findings can be applied in practice, particularly for sports psychologists and educators. 5. "Limitations and suggestions for future research are not presented." Response: I have included a discussion on the limitations of the study and provided suggestions for future research. This section now outlines the study's limitations and offers directions for further investigation. 6. "Formatting needs to be reviewed (e.g., line 429)." Response: I have reviewed and corrected the formatting issues. The inconsistencies in the formatting have been addressed. ________________________________________ Response to Reviewer 2 1. "Line 28: The authors could specify which sport they are referring to." Response: I have added information specifying the sports involved in the study. This detail is now clearly presented in the revised manuscript. 2. "Line 29: They could also specify the age of the youngest and oldest participants." Response: I have included the ages of the youngest and oldest participants in the revised manuscript. This information now provides a clearer picture of the demographic characteristics of the sample. 3. "Line 31: If the aim of the study is to examine correlation, why did the authors use t-tests and ANOVA?" Response: I have clarified the rationale for using t-tests and ANOVA in the context of the study's aim to examine correlations. The explanations for the choice of statistical tests and their relevance to the correlation analysis have been detailed. 4. "Line 30: The questionnaire measures Social Safeness and Pleasure and Resilience Scales)" Response: I have corrected and clarified this line to better describe the scales measured by the questionnaire. 5. "Lines 36 and 37: Something seems missing." Response: I have addressed the missing information and provided additional details to complete the relevant sections. 6. "Lines 41-44: I don’t think this is fundamental to the study." Response: I have re-evaluated the content in lines 41-44 and made adjustments to ensure that only essential information is included. Unnecessary or tangential details have been removed. 7. "It seems to me that the term 'sport' is not well-defined. It could help to differentiate it from physical activity and physical exercise." Response: I have refined the definition of the term 'sport' and clarified its distinction from physical activity and physical exercise. This clarification helps in understanding the terms used in the study. 8. "The definitions of the variables studied and their relationship with sport could be better defined. Also, what is the relationship with the examined population?" Response: I have provided a more detailed definition of the variables studied and their relationship to sport. Additionally, I have elaborated on how these variables relate to the examined population. 9. "What gap in the literature do the authors aim to fill with the paper? What is the real significance of the study?" Response: I have included a section addressing the gap in the literature that this study aims to fill. The significance of the study and its contributions to the field are now clearly articulated. 10. "Lines 94-95: How can a study conducting correlations determine interventions that could improve the examined variables?" Response: I have added explanations on how the correlation findings can inform potential interventions. The relationship between the study’s findings and possible interventions has been clarified. 11. "Lines 107 and 110: Not all athletes engage in sports." Response: I have addressed this point by discussing how the findings relate to participants who do not engage in sports and their potential impact on the results. 12. "Line 121: The abstract shows that the authors used a tool evaluating all variables." Response: I have revised the abstract to more clearly describe the tool used for evaluating the variables and how it was applied in the study. 13. "Line 123: What is the single dimension evaluated by the scale? Aren't Social Safeness and Pleasure two dimensions? What are the possible answers?" Response: I have clarified the dimensions assessed by the scale. The distinction between Social Safeness and Pleasure as separate dimensions is now explicitly discussed, along with possible responses. 14. "Line 139: This is a very weak section. The authors could provide more information about this process." Response: I have strengthened the section on line 139 by providing more detailed information about the process involved. 15. "Line 164: I still think that Safeness is one dimension and Pleasure is another. The authors are only presenting an average value. I might not understand the instrument, so please ask the authors to clarify." Response: I have addressed this concern by clarifying the dimensions of the Safeness and Pleasure scales and explaining how they are measured. Additional details on the measurement instrument have been provided. 16. "Line 167: The sub-dimensions do not match those previously presented." Response: I have corrected any discrepancies regarding the sub-dimensions and aligned them with the previously presented information. 17. "Line 179: I now understand why statistical tests were conducted. However, the authors only mention the gender differences for the first time. This issue was not previously addressed." Response: I have elaborated on the gender differences mentioned and provided context on why this issue is introduced at this point in the manuscript. 18. "Line 199: What is the reason for this?" Response: I have provided an explanation for the issue mentioned in line 199 to clarify any confusion. 19. "Line 258: The table is not perceptible." Response: I have revised the table to improve its clarity and readability. The table has been updated to ensure that it is easily perceptible. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0315889.r002
1 Nov 2024 Decision Letter - Diogo Manuel Teixeira Monteiro, Editor PONE-D-24-27311R1The Relationship between Social Safeness and Pleasure and Resilience Levels among University Athletes: A Descriptive StudyPLOS ONE Dear Dr. Temel, 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 Dec 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, Diogo Manuel Teixeira Monteiro, 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 #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: Although not all of my comments were answered in the reply letter, the manuscript managed to incorporate the suggestions and requests I made in round 1. I therefore consider that the manuscript is in a position to be accepted for publication. Reviewer #2: Regarding my comment number 7 ("It seems to me that the term “sport” is not well-defined. It could help to differentiate it from physical activity and physical exercise"): it is not clear where the authors present this information. Regarding my comment number 10 (‘Lines 94-95: How can a study conducting correlations determine interventions that could improve the examined variables?’): I still have the same doubt, and I can't find in the document where this information was added. I would ask the authors to identify the lines. The authors should clarify the inclusion and exclusion criteria, given that not all athletes are involved in the same sports or practice intensities. There is no p-value =.000 The analysis of gender differences was introduced in the results, but this aspect could have been mentioned earlier in the introduction to give context to the choice of variables. The discussion is carried out in a very superficial way, without much reflection and specific practical recommendations for educational institutions to promote well-being and resilience among students. The statistical analysis revealed significant differences in the resilience subscales between genders, with higher scores for men. This point could be discussed in greater depth, exploring potential reasons for these differences. ****** 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: Yes: Miguel Jacinto ******** [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. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0315889.r003
Revision 2
20 Nov 2024 Author Response The rebuttal letter Manuscript Number : PONE-D-24-27311R1 Manuscript Title : The Relationship between Social Safeness and Pleasure and Resilience Levels among University Athletes: A Descriptive Study Dear Academic Editor and Reviewers, First of all, I would like to thank you for your evaluations, opinions, suggestions and comments. My responses to the evaluations and comments made are written below. Best regards Dr. Veysel TEMEL Journal Requirements 1. 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. 1. Answer: Dear Editor, We have carefully reviewed and addressed all requested revisions regarding the reference list. Necessary updates were made, and any retracted articles were either replaced or retained with clear justification in the manuscript text. Changes to the reference list are highlighted in yellow within the manuscript. Thank you for your guidance and consideration. Reviewers’ comments and responses Reviewer 1 Reviewer 1: Although not all of my comments were answered in the reply letter, the manuscript managed to incorporate the suggestions and requests I made in round 1. I therefore consider that the manuscript is in a position to be accepted for publication. Author Answer: Thank you very much for your valuable feedback and support throughout the review process. We appreciate your comments, which have helped improve our manuscript. Reviewer 2 Reviewer 2: Regarding my comment number 7 ("It seems to me that the term “sport” is not well-defined. It could help to differentiate it from physical activity and physical exercise"): it is not clear where the authors present this information. Author Answer: Thank you for your valuable feedback and for pointing out the need for a clearer definition of the term "sport." In response to your comment, we have revised the manuscript to include a clear distinction between "sport," "physical activity," and "physical exercise." This clarification has been added in lines 57 to 74 of the revised manuscript, where we elaborate on how "sport" differs from general physical activity and exercise in terms of its organized, competitive nature, as well as its connection to skill, strategy, and formalized competition. We have also included relevant references to support these distinctions. Reviewer 2: Regarding my comment number 10 (‘Lines 94-95: How can a study conducting correlations determine interventions that could improve the examined variables?’): I still have the same doubt, and I can't find in the document where this information was added. I would ask the authors to identify the lines. Author Answer: Thank you for your comment regarding the role of correlation analysis in determining interventions. We have revised the manuscript to clarify that correlation analysis, such as the Pearson Product Moment Correlation Analysis, identifies relationships between variables but does not establish causality or direct intervention strategies. We have expanded on this point in the revised manuscript to emphasize that while the observed correlations between social safeness, pleasure, and resilience may suggest potential areas for intervention, further experimental research is needed to confirm specific interventions. We hope this revision adequately addresses your concern. Thank you for your insightful feedback. Reviewer 2: The authors should clarify the inclusion and exclusion criteria, given that not all athletes are involved in the same sports or practice intensities. Author Answer: Following your comment, we have clarified the categorization of participants based on their frequency of sports participation. The participants were divided into the categories of "Seldom," "Sometimes," "Usually," "Often," and "Always," and they are active individuals who engage in sports at sports clubs or sports centers. We have added this clarification to the manuscript. Reviewer 2: There is no p-value =.000 Author Answer: Thank you for your comment. We have corrected the p-value notation in the manuscript. The previously mentioned p-value of 0.000 has been revised to p < 0.001, in accordance with statistical reporting standards. Reviewer 2: The analysis of gender differences was introduced in the results, but this aspect could have been mentioned earlier in the introduction to give context to the choice of variables. Author Answer: Thank you for your valuable suggestion. In response to your comment, we have added a discussion of gender differences in the introduction, specifically between lines 117-125. This addition clarifies the rationale for including gender as a variable in the study, providing context for the choice of variables and their relevance to the research. Reviewer 2: The discussion is carried out in a very superficial way, without much reflection and specific practical recommendations for educational institutions to promote well-being and resilience among students. Author Answer: "The discussion section has been revised to provide a more detailed and comprehensive analysis. The changes have been incorporated in lines 325-380, 407-441, 472-534 and 537-565 and are highlighted in yellow for easy reference." Reviewer 2: The statistical analysis revealed significant differences in the resilience subscales between genders, with higher scores for men. This point could be discussed in greater depth, exploring potential reasons for these differences. Author Answer: "The discussion section has been revised to provide a more detailed and comprehensive analysis. The changes have been incorporated in lines 325-352 are highlighted in yellow for easy reference." Also, Thank you for your valuable feedback. We have carefully considered your suggestions and included a comprehensive "Recommendations for Future Research" section in the manuscript, addressing potential avenues for expanding upon the study's findings. We believe these additions will enhance the clarity and relevance of our research within the field. Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0315889.r004
3 Dec 2024 Decision Letter - Diogo Manuel Teixeira Monteiro, Editor The Relationship between Social Safeness and Pleasure and Resilience Levels among University Athletes: A Descriptive Study PONE-D-24-27311R2 Dear Dr. Veysel Temel 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, Diogo Manuel Teixeira Monteiro, 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 #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: No 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: Congratulations to the authors for improving the manuscript. I believe that the article is now in a position to be accepted. 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: Yes: Miguel Jacinto ******** https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0315889.r005
Formally Accepted
3 Jan 2025 Acceptance Letter - Diogo Manuel Teixeira Monteiro, Editor PONE-D-24-27311R2 PLOS ONE Dear Dr. Temel, I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now being handed over to our production team. At this stage, our production department will prepare your paper for publication. This includes ensuring the following: * All references, tables, and figures are properly cited * All relevant supporting information is included in the manuscript submission, * There are no issues that prevent the paper from being properly typeset If revisions are needed, the production department will contact you directly to resolve them. If no revisions are needed, you will receive an email when the publication date has been set. At this time, we do not offer pre-publication proofs to authors during production of the accepted work. Please keep in mind that we are working through a large volume of accepted articles, so please give us a few weeks to review your paper and let you know the next and final steps. Lastly, if your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. 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. If we can help with anything else, please email us at customercare@plos.org. Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access. Kind regards, PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff on behalf of Dr. Diogo Manuel Teixeira Monteiro Academic Editor PLOS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0315889.r006

Open letter on the publication of peer review reports

PLOS recognizes the benefits of transparency in the peer review process. Therefore, we enable the publication of all of the content of peer review and author responses alongside final, published articles. Reviewers remain anonymous, unless they choose to reveal their names.

We encourage other journals to join us in this initiative. We hope that our action inspires the community, including researchers, research funders, and research institutions, to recognize the benefits of published peer review reports for all parts of the research system.

Learn more at ASAPbio .