PONE-D-25-08597The Impact of Physical Exercise on University Students' Life Satisfaction: The Chain Mediation Effects of General Self-Efficacy and Health LiteracyPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Shao,

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 Jun 09 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,

RAMYA KUNDAYI RAVI

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. 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.

3. 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.

Additional Editor Comments (if provided):

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

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

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: No

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: This manuscript presents presents an important and timely exploration of the mediating psychological mechanisms linking physical exercise and life satisfaction in a large sample of Chinese university students. I commend the authors for their rigorous approach and thoughtful analysis. The results are reported clearly and generally follow rigorous statistical standards. However, a few points require clarification and refinement to enhance the scientific merit and interpretability of the findings, to ensure alignment with PLOS ONE’s criteria for scientific rigor and transparency.

Major issues:

1) The data collection period mentioned in line no. 161 (Nov 2023) predates the recruitment period in line no. 160 (Aug–Sep 2024), which appears inconsistent and should be clarified.

2) The decision to dichotomize general self-efficacy (low/normal) is mentioned under variable measurement in line no. 208 but not reflected in later analyses. Was this grouping used at any point? If not, consider removing the detail to avoid confusion.

3) The conclusion that general self-efficacy and health literacy fully mediate the relationship between exercise and life satisfaction in line no. 398 and 441 should be framed with caution. While statistically accurate, the magnitude of the total effect (0.045) is small and should not be overstated.

4) Although all references are numbered in order of appearance and in-text citations correspond to the reference list correctly., but some journal names are abbreviated like J Behav Med, some article titles were in capitals and DOIs are missing in most of the references. It is suggested to align the referencing style with PLOS ONE referencing style

Suggestions

5) The mediation analysis reveals that general self-efficacy accounts for 79.5% of the total indirect effect, while the chain mediation pathway (via both general self-efficacy and health literacy) accounts for 11.4%. You are encouraged to highlight why general self-efficacy appears to be a more potent mediator and elaborate on potential theoretical underpinnings for this finding.

6) Expand on why the direct effect of physical exercise becomes nonsignificant—e.g., are there competing pathways not captured in the model?

7) While demographic variables (e.g., gender, ethnicity, grade) were included as covariates, no moderation analysis was conducted. Given the large sample and observed gender differences in physical activity (η² = 0.155), you are encouraged to consider whether the mediation model operates differently across subgroups (e.g., males vs. females), either in this paper or as a future direction.

8) The final paragraphs of the discussion somewhat repeat earlier points; consider tightening the conclusion.

9) In Table 2, clarify the layout to improve readability across demographic variables and their statistical outcomes.

I look forward to the revised version of your manuscript.

Reviewer #2: Chain mediation effect has been technically well explained by the researcher. A good piece of information has been presented via this research. Methodology has been explained clearly and all the findings are clear with appropriate statistical tests. Please consider the following points:

- in line no. 174, explaination is required for "no ethical committee waived the need for consent"

- Reliability of SWLS is not provided.

- For lnes 68-72, reference of data related to challenges faced by university students need to be provided.

**********

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.

The Impact of Physical Exercise on University Students' Life Satisfaction: The Chain Mediation Effects of General Self-Efficacy and Health Literacy

PONE-D-25-08597R1

Dear Dr. Shao,

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,

RAMYA KUNDAYI RAVI

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE