PONE-D-24-33298Can working in agriculture have a favorable effect on depressive symptoms?Life satisfaction as a mediatorPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Chen,

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.

I hope this message finds you well. Thank you for submitting your manuscript, "Can Working in Agriculture Have a Favorable Effect on Depressive Symptoms? Life Satisfaction as a Mediator," to PLOS ONE. I have carefully reviewed your work along with the comments provided by our esteemed reviewers. While all three reviewers have recommended minor revisions, upon careful consideration of their feedback and a thorough evaluation of your manuscript, I believe that a more comprehensive set of changes—what we typically categorize as a major revision—would significantly enhance the quality and clarity of your paper.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Dec 19 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,

Wenbin Du

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. Thank you for stating in your Funding Statement: 

Funding

This research is supported by Key Laboratory of Philosophy and Social Sciences of Colleges and Universities in Guangdong Province (2023WSYS005, 2023WSYS007), the 13th Five-Year Plan of Guangdong Province for Philosophy and Social Sciences (GD20XGL42).

Please provide an amended statement that declares *all* the funding or sources of support (whether external or internal to your organization) received during this study, as detailed online in our guide for authors at http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submit-now.  Please also include the statement “There was no additional external funding received for this study.” in your updated Funding Statement. 

Please include your amended Funding Statement within your cover letter. We will change the online submission form on your behalf.

3. In the online submission form, you indicated that your data is available only on request from a third party. Please note that your Data Availability Statement is currently missing the name of the third party contact or institution. Please update your statement with the missing information. 

4. PLOS requires an ORCID iD for the corresponding author in Editorial Manager on papers submitted after December 6th, 2016. Please ensure that you have an ORCID iD and that it is validated in Editorial Manager. To do this, go to ‘Update my Information’ (in the upper left-hand corner of the main menu), and click on the Fetch/Validate link next to the ORCID field. This will take you to the ORCID site and allow you to create a new iD or authenticate a pre-existing iD in Editorial Manager.

5. Your ethics statement should only appear in the Methods section of your manuscript. If your ethics statement is written in any section besides the Methods, please delete it from any other section. 

[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

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: 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

Reviewer #3: 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

Reviewer #3: 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:  1. Add 'China' to the keywords to improve the searches of the article when published on online databases.

2. In the introduction, it is important to expose the research gaps by reviewing related studies in the Chinese context especially. While the global stretch of this have been done, only a study referencing China has been cited though there are a lot of studies in China that have investigated the correlation between job(s) and depression with life satisfaction playing a mediating role.

3. It's important to reference some of the studies that have validated the CES-D scale with much success, pointing to it as reliable and as such efficacious for such a study.

4. In the selection of the covariates, do well to reference the previous studies that were consulted and justify the covariates that were settled on for the study.

5. In the discussion, the proposition put forward which is based on the significant results attained after running rigorous analysis, which are lower life satisfaction and social activity participation as major risk factors for the development of depression among agricultural workers need to be discussed from the perspective of other empirical studies. Which existing studies on work-related depression have recorded similar results? What might probably be the underlying causative factors for recording such results? Discussion of these questions must be expanded in the discussion section. This was beautifully done in the discussion on the high risk of depression recorded among self-employed agricultural workers.

6. The limitations must be moved from the discussion to the concluding section. Also, after summarizing the study's purpose, it is important to reiterate the key results and draw valid conclusions from them based on the underlying research questions and hypotheses set. This has not been done.

Reviewer #2:  The study “Can working in agriculture have a favorable effect on depressive symptoms? Life satisfaction as a mediator” investigates the impact of agricultural work on depressive symptoms and whether life satisfaction mediates this relationship. The study concluded that self-employed workers in agriculture have a higher risk of developing depressive states and present a high risk of developing depression. This is a relevant finding for research related to depressive disorders. However, there are areas that require clarification and significant improvements, particularly regarding the background, research design development, data analysis, and alignment of the research questions with the results. Addressing these points would strengthen the overall impact and credibility of the work. Notably, the manuscript is generally well-written, and the authors should be able to address my points through a revision. My comments and suggestions for improvement are described below.

Introduction

2nd paragraph:

In the excerpt: "...but there is still no research focusing on the association between job type and depression…"

There is an inconsistency because the two references below associate depression and job type:

1-) Kim S, Kwon M, Seo K. Factors Influencing the Health-Related Quality of Life of Workers According to the Type of Work. Healthcare (Basel). 2022 Oct 18;10(10):2066. doi: 10.3390/healthcare10102066;

2-) Kang W, Park WJ, Jang KH, Lim HM, Ann JS, Cho SH, Moon JD. Comparison of anxiety and depression status between office and manufacturing job employees in a large manufacturing company: a cross sectional study. Ann Occup Environ Med. 2016 Sep 15;28:47. doi: 10.1186/s40557-016-0134-z.

2nd and 3rd paragraphs: In the excerpts below:

“This study will then look at different types of work - agricultural and non-agricultural - and explore the association with depression, and further analyze subgroups of the population according to whether they are self-employed or employed".

“Therefore, in this study, it is necessary to investigate whether the type of jobs has a correlation with life satisfaction and to include life satisfaction in the model as a mediating variable to investigate whether the type of jobs acts on the depressive state through life satisfaction”.

I suggest focusing the research objectives in a single paragraph, preferably in the last paragraph of the Introduction.

3nd paragraph: In the excerpt: " ...It has been proven that there is an association between life satisfaction and depression in middle-aged and elderly people."

It is not clear what type of association exists between the two mentioned variables.

Method

Research design

I suggest specifying the method used for the sample calculation.

Study population

I suggest reporting the exclusion criteria applied to the study.

Measurement Tools

Life satisfaction

In the excerpt: “Life satisfaction was assessed at baseline by asking participants: How satisfied are you with your life in general?"

Did the participants receive any information about what life satisfaction is and/or some more objective criteria to assist in their self-analysis?

I believe that a subjective question may lead participants to potential interpretation biases, making it necessary to establish criteria for them to respond more accurately.

Methods of statistical analysis

It is not clear what covariates were included in the correlation analysis.

Result/Discussion

I suggest reporting the influence of working hours and its relationship with depression and life satisfaction of agricultural workers.

Discussion

4nd paragraph:

In the excerpt: “There are many factors that contribute to the high prevalence of depressive states in the female population, including a combination of biological, psychological, and sociocultural factors. Biologically, women are more sensitive to hormonal fluctuations associated with the reproductive cycle, such as hormonal fluctuations (menstrual cycle, postpartum, and menopause) that can affect mood thus leading to the occurrence of premenstrual irritability disorder and postpartum depressive states, among others[32 –34]; psychology points out that women are more prone to recurring thoughts of negativity[32], which may be associated with an increased risk of depressive states; and in the process of growing up, the Gender roles and societal expectations place additional stress on women, with sexual violence [35], sexual abuse [33], interpersonal violence, stress exposure and stress susceptibility [33] at the micro level, and gender inequality[36, 37] at the macro level, all of which increase the risk for the development of depressive states in women.”

What is the relationship between the mentioned factors and depression associated with agricultural work?

Conclusion

I suggest reporting the relevance of the research for public health policies in China. In light of the study's results, what can be done to improve the quality of life for agricultural workers?

Reviewer #3:  1. The study addresses an important and understudied area: the relationship between agricultural work and depressive symptoms. However, the use of a single-item measure for life satisfaction, while common, may not capture the full complexity of the construct. The study doesn't fully explore potential mechanisms underlying the relationship between agricultural work and depressive symptoms.

2. the article presents a well-structured study with a solid methodology and employing appropriate statistical techniques for the research questions. The use of propensity score matching to balance the agricultural and non-agricultural groups is a strength. The results are computed using appropriate statistical techniques, including logistic regression analysis to identify protective factors associated with life satisfaction and depressive symptoms. The use of odds ratios (OR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) provides a clear understanding of the strength and significance of the associations. Additionally, mediation analysis is conducted to explore the role of life satisfaction in the relationship between job type and depressive symptoms, which is a robust approach to understanding causal pathways. The sensitivity analysis adds another layer of reliability to the findings, indicating that the mediating effects are not overly influenced by confounding variables. Overall, the statistical methods employed are appropriate for the research questions posed. However, there are some potential drawbacks:

• The dichotomization of the CES-D scores for logistic regression may lead to loss of information.

• The study doesn't address potential selection bias - people with certain characteristics may be more likely to engage in agricultural work.

3. The finding that agricultural workers have higher depressive symptom scores is surprising and doesn't align with some existing literature on the potential mental health benefits of nature-based activities. However, this could be due to other factors associated with agricultural work in China, such as economic stress or physical strain. The mediating role of life satisfaction is consistent with previous research on well-being and mental health. The subgroup analyses provide interesting insights into how the relationships differ across various populations, which adds nuance to the overall findings.

4. There are numerous grammatical and typographical errors throughout the text, which should be carefully edited.

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean? ). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy .

Reviewer #1: Yes:  Dickson Adom

Reviewer #2: Yes:  Débora Regina de Aguiar

Reviewer #3: No

**********

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/ . PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org . Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

PONE-D-24-33298R1Can working in agriculture have a favorable effect on depressive symptoms?Life satisfaction as a mediatorPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Chen,

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 May 10 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,

Zahra Lorigooini

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 #3: (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 #3: Partly

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #3: No

**********

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:  Thanks for revising the manuscript based on my earlier comments. The rigor of the manuscript has been enhanced.

Reviewer #3:  The literature review is reasonably comprehensive, summarizing relevant studies related to depression, work-related factors, and life satisfaction. However, it could benefit from the incorporation of more recent studies and contrasting findings to provide a wider context. While the identification of gaps in current research is commendable, particularly in relation to job types and depressive symptoms, the paper would be fortified by clearly detailing how the current study directly addresses these identified gaps.

The methodology employed in the study is appropriate for the research questions posed, utilizing a large and representative sample from the China Health and Retirement Longitudinal Study (CHARLS). This approach enhances the generalizability of the findings. The description of the methodology is adequately detailed, covering aspects such as data collection, participant selection, measurement tools, and statistical analyses. However, a more explicit discussion regarding the handling of potential confounders would improve the overall clarity of the methodology section.

The results are presented in a clear and logical manner, with a commendable use of statistics to support the findings. The application of logistic regression and mediation analyses is well-documented. The article makes effective use of tables and figures to present data; however, clearer captions summarizing the key findings for each table and figure would enhance reader comprehension.

The discussion effectively ties back to the research question and objectives, interpreting the results in the context of the existing literature. While the limitations of the study are acknowledged, including its cross-sectional nature and reliance on self-reported measures, a more thorough exploration of the implications of these limitations would enrich the discussion.

The article is generally well-written and clear, although some sections could benefit from reduced jargon and more straightforward language to improve accessibility for a broader audience. The logical structure of the article facilitates a coherent flow from the introduction, through methodology and results, to discussion and conclusion.

The study adheres to ethical standards as evidenced by approval from the Peking University Ethics Committee and informed consent obtained from participants. However, potential conflicts of interest are not explicitly addressed, which should be included to enhance transparency.

The references cited in the article are relevant, although some may be outdated. Incorporating more recent studies could bolster the literature supporting the research. The article appears to follow a consistent citation style; however, a final review is advisable to ensure completeness and accuracy.

Recommendations

To enhance the quality of the article prior to publication, I recommend the following revisions:

• Incorporate more recent studies and contrasting findings to broaden the context and strengthen the literature base.

• Provide a more in-depth discussion of the implications of the study’s limitations, particularly regarding the cross-sectional design and reliance on self-reported measures.

• Include a section addressing potential conflicts of interest to improve transparency and adhere to ethical standards.

• Simplify some sections of the text to reduce jargon and make the article more accessible to a wider audience.

• Add clearer captions that summarize the key findings of each table and figure to enhance reader comprehension.

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean? ). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy .

Reviewer #1: Yes:  Dickson Adom

Reviewer #3: No

**********

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/ . PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org . Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

PONE-D-24-33298R2Can working in agriculture have a favorable effect on depressive symptoms?Life satisfaction as a mediatorPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Chen,

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 May 28 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,

Zahra Lorigooini

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 #3: All comments have been addressed

**********

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

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

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #3: • The background is relatively up-to-date, mentioning key studies but could benefit from a broader range of literature around depression and agricultural work.

• The objectives are clearly stated, aiming to explore the association of agricultural work with depressive symptoms and the mediating role of life satisfaction.

• The study methods are sufficiently detailed for replication, including sampling and assessment tools used (CHARLS data, CES-D scale for depression).

• The statistical analyses appear appropriate, utilizing regression methods and sensitivity analyses to ensure robustness in findings.

• The methodology does attempt to address potential biases by including various covariates and controlling for other factors influencing mental health.

• Research was conducted in an ethical manner, approved by the relevant institutional review board.

• The findings are presented clearly, with appropriate statistical results discussed, though incorporating more visual aids could enhance clarity.

• Results align well with stated objectives, showing significant associations between agricultural work, depressive symptoms, and life satisfaction.

• While the initial analyses are thorough, sensitivity analyses and confidence intervals could enhance the validity of the results.

• The authors provide evidence supporting their claims, referencing statistical findings effectively.

• The discussion includes comparisons with existing literature, although a more in-depth exploration of how findings differ from or confirm previous studies could strengthen arguments.

• The alternative interpretations of findings considered are not considered. The authors could expand on alternative interpretations of their findings for a more balanced discussion.

• Conclusions logically follow the data and analyses presented.

• Limitations are acknowledged, but a deeper discussion on their implications could enhance the conclusion.

• The study does suggest avenues for future research, particularly in improving life satisfaction among agricultural workers.

• The manuscript is well-organized, though some sections could benefit from more concise presentations.

• The writing is generally clear and accessible, suitable for readers with a general background in health research.

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean? ). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy .

Reviewer #3: No

**********

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/ . PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org . Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

PONE-D-24-33298R3Can working in agriculture have a favorable effect on depressive symptoms?Life satisfaction as a mediatorPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Chen,

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 06 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,

Zahra Lorigooini

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 #3: All comments have been addressed

**********

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

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

Reviewer #3: Partly

**********

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

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #3: The study addresses a critical issue and Utilizing the CHARLS 2015 dataset (n=6,856) enhances statistical power and generalizability to China’s middle-aged and elderly population. The use of CES-D for depressive symptoms and SWLS for life satisfaction strengthens the reliability of the outcomes. Inclusion of demographic, behavioral, and social factors (e.g., age, gender, social activity) reduces confounding bias. Mediation analysis via Baron and Kenny’s approach and Sobel test appropriately tests the hypothesized pathways.

However, consider the following concern to address them Limits causal inference. The observed associations could reflect reverse causality (e.g., depressive individuals may self-select into agricultural work).

1. Excluding 11,270 participants due to missing values risks selection bias. Multiple imputation or sensitivity analyses are needed to validate findings.

2. Dichotomizing jobs into "agricultural" vs. "non-agricultural" ignores heterogeneity within agricultural work (e.g., subsistence vs. commercial farming). Clarify contradictions (e.g., job type’s non-significance in logistic regression vs. abstract’s emphasis on self-employed risk).

3. Reliance on one question ("How satisfied are you with your life?") may lack depth compared to multi-item scales like SWLS.

4. Life satisfaction mediated only 5.13% of the total effect, questioning its practical significance. Other mediators (e.g., income stability, social support) were overlooked.

5. Self-employed agricultural workers showed more protective factors, conflicting with literature on self-employment stressors. The rationale for this is underexplored.

6. The 2015 dataset may not reflect recent socioeconomic changes in rural China (e.g., digitalization, policy shifts).

7. Inconsistent table/figure numbering, (e.g., Fig. 3–7 not provided), and unclear reporting of propensity score matching methodology. Provide full details on propensity score matching (variables, method, balance diagnostics).

Highlight them in limitation and recommend them for future consideration.

1. Use longitudinal data to establish temporal relationships.

2. Apply multiple imputation for missing data and report sensitivity analyses.

3. Refine job type categorization (e.g., differentiate farming practices, land ownership).

4. Consider alternative regression models (e.g., Poisson) for common outcomes to avoid overestimating odds ratios.

5. Explore additional mediators (e.g., economic stability, pesticide exposure) to explain the weak mediation effect of life satisfaction.

6. Include all figures/tables referenced (e.g., correlation matrix, mediation model).

7. Address any ethical and temporal relevance related to mental health.

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean? ). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy .

Reviewer #3: No

**********

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/ . PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org . Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

PONE-D-24-33298R4Can working in agriculture have a favorable effect on depressive symptoms?Life satisfaction as a mediatorPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Chen,

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.

• To ensure clarity and thoroughness in addressing their comments, we kindly request that you respond to each reviewer’s comment separately in your response file, rather than addressing all comments collectively.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Jun 16 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,

Zahra Lorigooini

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.]

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/ . PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org . Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

PONE-D-24-33298R5Can working in agriculture have a favorable effect on depressive symptoms?Life satisfaction as a mediatorPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Chen,

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.

==============================

ACADEMIC EDITOR:

I have carefully reviewed the manuscript and would like to share some editorial suggestions to enhance the clarity and professionalism of the text:

• Inconsistent Spacing:
  
  • In several instances, there are missing spaces after periods and commas, e.g., "depressive symptoms.Life satisfaction" should be "depressive symptoms. Life satisfaction."
  • Extra spaces were found between words in sentences like "working in agriculture," which should be corrected to "working in agriculture."
  • In many instances, reference numbers are directly attached to the last word, e.g., "study shows that depression is prevalent among older adults[12]" should be "study shows that depression is prevalent among older adults [12]."
• Improper Hyphenation and Spacing:
  Some compound terms such as "self-employedagricultural workers" lack appropriate spacing. This should be revised to "self-employed agricultural workers."
• Extra Periods:
  
  • In certain parts of the manuscript, extra periods were identified, e.g., "data were analyzed.." This should be corrected to "data were analyzed."
• Spacing Around Statistical Values:
  
  • In statistical reporting, there should be a space before and after inequality symbols, e.g., "p<0.001" should be "p < 0.001."
• Inconsistent Use of Punctuation:
  
  • Some sections contain inconsistent use of commas and semicolons. Please ensure that list items are separated correctly and that sentences are punctuated properly.
• Suggestions for Improvement:
  
  • I recommend a thorough proofreading to ensure consistency in spacing, punctuation, and formatting.
  • Utilizing tools such as Grammarly or the built-in proofing tools in Microsoft Word may assist in identifying minor errors.

Note: I have previously mentioned that the manuscript should be edited according to the PLOS ONE formatting guidelines. However, the issues mentioned above are still present in the text. I recommend careful alignment with the PLOS ONE standards to avoid further revisions.

I hope these suggestions help in enhancing the quality and readability of the manuscript. If you require further clarification or assistance with revisions, please feel free to reach out.

==============================

Please submit your revised manuscript by Jun 28 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,

Zahra Lorigooini

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.]

[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.

<p>Can working in agriculture have a favorable effect on depressive symptoms?Life satisfaction as a mediator

PONE-D-24-33298R6

Dear Dr. Chen,

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,

Zahra Lorigooini

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments: