Peer Review History

Original SubmissionFebruary 7, 2025
Decision Letter - Jindong Chang, Editor

PONE-D-25-04270

Motivation and Physical Activity across Chinese Adolescents:

Based on Latent Profile Analysis

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Zheng,

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 Jul 03 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,

Jindong Chang, Ph.D.

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. You indicated that you had ethical approval for your study. In your Methods section, please ensure you have also stated whether you obtained consent from parents or guardians of the minors included in the study or whether the research ethics committee or IRB specifically waived the need for their consent.

3. In this instance it seems there may be acceptable restrictions in place that prevent the public sharing of your minimal data. However, in line with our goal of ensuring long-term data availability to all interested researchers, PLOS’ Data Policy states that authors cannot be the sole named individuals responsible for ensuring data access (http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-acceptable-data-sharing-methods).

Data requests to a non-author institutional point of contact, such as a data access or ethics committee, helps guarantee long term stability and availability of data. Providing interested researchers with a durable point of contact ensures data will be accessible even if an author changes email addresses, institutions, or becomes unavailable to answer requests.

Before we proceed with your manuscript, please also provide non-author contact information (phone/email/hyperlink) for a data access committee, ethics committee, or other institutional body to which data requests may be sent. If no institutional body is available to respond to requests for your minimal data, please consider if there any institutional representatives who did not collaborate in the study, and are not listed as authors on the manuscript, who would be able to hold the data and respond to external requests for data access? If so, please provide their contact information (i.e., email address). Please also provide details on how you will ensure persistent or long-term data storage and availability.

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.

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

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

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

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

Reviewer #1: Partly

**********

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

Reviewer #1: 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

**********

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

**********

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. The abstract need to be rewritten, specifically the Method section. It is too brief and did not explain the methodology of this study.

2. Check the in-text citation of the entire manuscript. Only last name and years need to be in your in-text citation.

3. The gap of the current study is unclear, and not spell out.

4. Current study chose the validated Chinese version of Sport Motivation Scale (Li & Harmer, 1996), however the newest/latest instrument in the field is Sport Motivation Scale-2. What is the rationale for ignoring the new version of SMS-2?

6. The smaller values of AIC, BIC, and aBIC indicate the better model fit… provide what the accepted small values.

7. “However, amotivation was not correlated with intrinsic motivation”… there are some irregularities in the explanation of this paragraph.

8. Conclusion: The word In ‘sum’ needs to be changed to In summary

9. Manuscript needs to undergo rigorous proofing reading.

**********

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

**********

[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.

Attachments
Attachment
Submitted filename: PONE-D-25-04270 (2).pdf
Revision 1

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you very much for your time and valuable feedback on our manuscript. We sincerely appreciate your constructive comments, which have helped us improve the quality and clarity of our work. Below, we provide a point-by-point response to your suggestions and outline the revisions we have made to the manuscript.

1. Abstract Rewriting

We have revised the Method section of the abstract to provide a clearer and more detailed explanation of the methodology. The updated version now includes key aspects such as the sample size, measurement tools (Sport Motivation Scale and IPAQ-SF), and analytical methods (LPA, MANOVA, ANOVA). This revision ensures that the abstract better reflects the study's design and procedures.

2. In-text Citation Format

We have carefully checked and corrected all in-text citations throughout the manuscript to ensure they adhere to the required format (last name and year only). Any deviations have been rectified.

3. Clarification of Research Gap

As suggested, we have expanded the discussion of the research gap in the Introduction section (page 7-8 of the revised manuscript). Specifically, we highlighted the lack of person-centered studies on motivation profiles among Chinese adolescents and the unique sociocultural context that may influence these profiles. This addition underscores the novelty and significance of our study.

4. Rationale for Using SMS Instead of SMS-2

We acknowledge the availability of the newer SMS-2 scale and appreciate the opportunity to clarify our choice. Our decision to use the original SMS was based on the following considerations:

Factor Structure: The SMS has demonstrated robust structural validity in prior studies, including those involving Chinese adolescents.

Internal Consistency: The scale’s reliability (Cronbach’s α) for all subscales in our study was acceptable (α > 0.70).

Dimensionality: The SMS-2 consolidates external motivation into a single dimension, whereas the SMS allows for a finer-grained analysis of introjection, identification, and external regulation-critical for our research questions.

6. Model Fit Indices (AIC, BIC, aBIC)

We have supplemented the explanation of model fit indices in the Results section (page 11). Specifically, we noted that differences >10 in AIC and >6 in BIC/aBIC are considered meaningful for model selection (Spurk et al., 2020; Tein et al., 2013). This addition clarifies the criteria used to determine the optimal profile model.

7. Description of Amotivation Correlations

We have revised the paragraph discussing amotivation correlations (page 13) to ensure accuracy and clarity. The updated text now clearly states that amotivation was not significantly correlated with intrinsic motivation to accomplishment or experience stimulation but showed weak positive correlations with identification and external regulation.

8. Conclusion Wording

The phrase “In sum” has been replaced with “In summary” in the Conclusion section.

9. Proofreading

The manuscript has undergone rigorous proofreading to correct grammatical errors, improve sentence structure, and ensure consistency in terminology. We have also double-checked tables and figures for accuracy.

Once again, we deeply appreciate your thoughtful review and hope that our revisions have addressed all your concerns satisfactorily. Please do not hesitate to contact us if further clarifications or adjustments are needed.

Best regards,

Wei Zheng

Sanming University

Email: zhengweiSanmingUniversity@outlook.com

Attachments
Attachment
Submitted filename: Response to Reviewer.docx
Decision Letter - Jindong Chang, Editor

Motivation and Physical Activity across Chinese Adolescents:

Based on Latent Profile Analysis

PONE-D-25-04270R1

Dear Dr. Zhang,

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,

Jindong Chang, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Formally Accepted
Acceptance Letter - Jindong Chang, Editor

PONE-D-25-04270R1

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Zheng,

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

You will receive further instructions from the production team, including instructions on how to review your proof when it is ready. Please keep in mind that we are working through a large volume of accepted articles, so please give us a few days 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. Jindong Chang

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

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 .