Loneliness and delusion-like experiences among women: Mediating role of procrastination and boredom proneness

Karolina Szalińska

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0329607

Peer Review History

Original SubmissionFebruary 11, 2025
Decision Letter - Frantisek Sudzina, Editor PONE-D-25-06976Loneliness and delusion-like experiences: mediating role of procrastination and boredom pronenessPLOS ONE Dear Dr. Szalińska, 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. In particular, there are three issues. First, how data were collected, though many articles get published with a similar collection method. Second, it's mostly women, so no definitive generalization can be made. Third, an important Cronbach alpha is really low. There are two obvious ways to address (2) - either collecting answers from more male respondents or dropping male respondents and making it clear already in the title that it's only about women. Let's hope that a different sample size will lead to a better Cronbach alpha. We invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process. Please disregard the comment about APA citation style. Please submit your revised manuscript by Jul 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, Frantisek Sudzina 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. In the online submission form, you indicated that “The data that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author, KS, upon reasonable request.”. All PLOS journals now require all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript to be freely available to other researchers, either 1. In a public repository, 2. Within the manuscript itself, or 3. Uploaded as supplementary information. This policy applies to all data except where public deposition would breach compliance with the protocol approved by your research ethics board. If your data cannot be made publicly available for ethical or legal reasons (e.g., public availability would compromise patient privacy), please explain your reasons on resubmission and your exemption request will be escalated for approval. 3. Please remove your figures from within your manuscript file, leaving only the individual TIFF/EPS image files, uploaded separately. These will be automatically included in the reviewers’ PDF. [Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.] Reviewers' comments: Reviewer's Responses to Questions Comments to the Author 1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions? The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented. Reviewer #1: Partly Reviewer #2: Yes ******** 2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: No 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 is a cross-sectional study exploring how loneliness is related to delusion-like experiences in the general population, and whether procrastination and boredom proneness mediate this relationship. The sample includes 331 participants, and analyses are conducted using bootstrapped mediation models. Even if the paper is interesting, I found specific aspects that require careful attention by the authors: - There are some problems with the participants. A specific gender imbalance, 82.8% of the sample are women. This limits generalizability and is not sufficiently discussed. Moreover, the use of self-selected online sample may not reflect the broader population in terms of education, socioeconomic status, etc. - Low reliability of Boredom Proneness Scale: Cronbach's alpha = 0.52 (total score) is very low, questioning the validity of conclusions about boredom proneness. - Procrastination and boredom proneness may be conceptually overlapping or collinear (as the manuscript itself notes), raising questions about their simultaneous inclusion in the model. - While procrastination is said to “reduce” the effect of loneliness on delusions, the language implies a causal direction not warranted by the cross-sectional design. - No data are presented on psychiatric history or current mental health. This limits the interpretability of results regarding non-clinical vs. clinical delusion-like experiences. - The data is said to be available “upon reasonable request.” This does not meet PLOS ONE’s standard of open data unless a strong justification is provided. Reviewer #2: Thanks to the author for their work in addressing many of my previous comments. In my opinion, the manuscript is much improved with these changes: There remain some changes that I have proposed that they authors have not fully integrated into their manuscript, and I would encourage them to reconsider. I attempt to clarify and expand on my comments below. 1- What is novelty in this study? There are so many studies, systematic reviews and meta-analysis conducted on this domain. 2- This generalization regarding some results needs further clarification and evidence as it applies to Western society. To show critical involvement, briefly mention any methodological flaws in the referenced studies or discrepancies in the results. The sentences in the introduction are somewhat complex and could be simplified for better readability. There is also redundancy in some sections. 3-This sudden transition to hypothesis one, two, three - there must be evidence and a prelude to the hypothesis - through a simple introduction. 4- In the methodology part, it is best to create a table showing all the information for the first study in terms of age, gender, education, and all descriptive data. The method section needs more detail about participant recruitment, inclusion/exclusion criteria, and demographic details. For example; At the beginning of the explanation of the questionnaires and methodology, no details were mentioned about the sample size - they were mentioned later in the results- Regarding the sample number and age, we need a table showing the division of age into categories because it is considered a very important indicator of significance. 5- There are a lot of grammatical errors and repetition - please review your language and sentence structure well. Structure of content (not of headings), is not easy to follow. For example, the first point should lead to the second. Some sentences are too long; and the grammar and English language needs attention. 6-The discussion section is too brief and lacks depth. Engage more critically with the findings, particularly the lack of significant gender differences, and the implications of the study How do these findings contribute to the existing body of literature on delusion. 7-Review all of the reference according to the final version of APA ; for example, there is no DOI (Digital Object Identifier) for the reference. How can the results be integrated and commented on with future research, as well as what are the shortcomings of this research (restructure all of this with main subheadings for both the benefits and shortcomings, as well as future research). ****** 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: Yes: Mai Helmy ******** [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.0329607.r001
Revision 1
7 Jul 2025 Author Response The main change involved limiting the obtained results exclusively to women, which was highlighted by modifying the title, updating the theoretical section of the manuscript, and re-running all statistical analyses on the female subgroup. Additionally, the noted limitations regarding the data collection method and the low Cronbach’s alpha reliability coefficient for one of the instruments were appropriately justified in the paragraph describing the study’s limitations. Response to Reviewer #1’s comments: First, I would like to sincerely thank the reviewer for their valuable and constructive comments. The insights provided have been very helpful in improving the quality and clarity of the manuscript. I have carefully considered each point and addressed them as follows: 1) The sample was reduced exclusively to the group of women; the limitation of data collection via electronic means as a common method was justified in the study’s limitations section. 2) The reliability of the BPS instrument changed after reducing the sample size; moreover, this aspect was addressed in the limitations section with appropriate explanations. 3) Prior to conducting the mediation analysis, the variables were checked for multicollinearity criteria (VIF and Tolerance coefficients); the results did not indicate any multicollinearity issues. An explanation has been added in the “Results” section. 4) I am aware that this was not an experimental study, so causal relationships cannot be inferred. The direction of the relationships was based on theoretical and empirical assumptions presented in the theoretical section. Consequently, all conclusions were stated probabilistically. The penultimate paragraph of the discussion acknowledges the impossibility of claiming causality, which would require further experimental or longitudinal studies. 5) The lack of data on psychiatric history or current mental health status of participants was described in the study limitations. 6) The data have been made publicly available via the OSF platform (https://osf.io/smky9/?view_only=339a37dac63a490eb54ccc0424c7962d). Response to Reviewer #2’s comments: I would like to sincerely thank Reviewer #2 for thorough and insightful feedback. The constructive suggestions provided have greatly contributed to enhancing the manuscript. Below, I address each of the points raised: 1) The novelty of my study is the specific configuration of variables examined, which has not been previously investigated. In particular, the mediating role of procrastination and boredom proneness has not been studied in relation between loneliness and delusion-like experiences before. Moreover, this configuration has not been explored specifically in relation to women, which adds a unique perspective and contribution to the existing literature. 2) I have added a reference to a study that specifically addresses the experience of loneliness within both collectivistic and individualistic cultural contexts. 3) Under each hypothesis, paragraphs with theoretical assumptions and previous research findings that supported the hypotheses formulated in this article were included. In my opinion, this was done clearly. 4) I added a table with the demographic characteristics of the sample, and updated the description of the sample as well as the participant recruitment procedure in the methods section. 5) The text was edited and reviewed by a professional translation agency. 6) The study was limited exclusively to the group of women. The discussion section was updated accordingly. 7) DOI numbers were added to the missing references (some did not have identifiers). The sections on study limitations and future research directions were separated into distinct subsections. Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0329607.r002
Decision Letter - Frantisek Sudzina, Editor PONE-D-25-06976R1Loneliness and delusion-like experiences among women: mediating role of procrastination and boredom pronenessPLOS ONE Dear Dr. Szalińska, 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. Please add composite reliabilities to strengthen your paper. Please remove the "author's summary". Please submit your revised manuscript by Aug 31 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, Frantisek Sudzina Academic Editor PLOS ONE Journal Requirements: If the reviewer comments include a recommendation to cite specific previously published works, please review and evaluate these publications to determine whether they are relevant and should be cited. There is no requirement to cite these works unless the editor has indicated otherwise. 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: Please add composite reliabilities to strengthen your paper. Please remove the "author's summary". [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. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0329607.r003
Revision 2
18 Jul 2025 Author Response I appreciate all of the editor’s valuable comments and advices, which helped me to improve my paper. According to the last revision from the editor, I deleted the author summary section, add the composite reliability values to all of the instruments used in the study, and complete the discussion section respectively. I left the markings of the previous changes in the paper and add a new ones. The main change involved limiting the obtained results exclusively to women, which was highlighted by modifying the title, updating the theoretical section of the manuscript, and re-running all statistical analyses on the female subgroup. Additionally, the noted limitations regarding the data collection method and the low Cronbach’s alpha reliability coefficient for one of the instruments were appropriately justified in the paragraph describing the study’s limitations. Response to Reviewer #1’s comments: First, I would like to sincerely thank the reviewer for their valuable and constructive comments. The insights provided have been very helpful in improving the quality and clarity of the manuscript. I have carefully considered each point and addressed them as follows: 1) The sample was reduced exclusively to the group of women; the limitation of data collection via electronic means as a common method was justified in the study’s limitations section. 2) The reliability of the BPS instrument changed after reducing the sample size; moreover, this aspect was addressed in the limitations section with appropriate explanations. 3) Prior to conducting the mediation analysis, the variables were checked for multicollinearity criteria (VIF and Tolerance coefficients); the results did not indicate any multicollinearity issues. An explanation has been added in the “Results” section. 4) I am aware that this was not an experimental study, so causal relationships cannot be inferred. The direction of the relationships was based on theoretical and empirical assumptions presented in the theoretical section. Consequently, all conclusions were stated probabilistically. The penultimate paragraph of the discussion acknowledges the impossibility of claiming causality, which would require further experimental or longitudinal studies. 5) The lack of data on psychiatric history or current mental health status of participants was described in the study limitations. 6) The data have been made publicly available via the OSF platform (https://osf.io/smky9/?view_only=339a37dac63a490eb54ccc0424c7962d). Response to Reviewer #2’s comments: I would like to sincerely thank Reviewer #2 for thorough and insightful feedback. The constructive suggestions provided have greatly contributed to enhancing the manuscript. Below, I address each of the points raised: 1) The novelty of my study is the specific configuration of variables examined, which has not been previously investigated. In particular, the mediating role of procrastination and boredom proneness has not been studied in relation between loneliness and delusion-like experiences before. Moreover, this configuration has not been explored specifically in relation to women, which adds a unique perspective and contribution to the existing literature. 2) I have added a reference to a study that specifically addresses the experience of loneliness within both collectivistic and individualistic cultural contexts. 3) Under each hypothesis, paragraphs with theoretical assumptions and previous research findings that supported the hypotheses formulated in this article were included. In my opinion, this was done clearly. 4) I added a table with the demographic characteristics of the sample, and updated the description of the sample as well as the participant recruitment procedure in the methods section. 5) The text was edited and reviewed by a professional translation agency. 6) The study was limited exclusively to the group of women. The discussion section was updated accordingly. 7) DOI numbers were added to the missing references (some did not have identifiers). The sections on study limitations and future research directions were separated into distinct subsections. Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Response_to_Reviewers_auresp_2.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0329607.r004
Decision Letter - Frantisek Sudzina, Editor Loneliness and delusion-like experiences among women: mediating role of procrastination and boredom proneness PONE-D-25-06976R2 Dear Dr. Szalińska, 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, Frantisek Sudzina Academic Editor PLOS ONE Additional Editor Comments (optional): Reviewers' comments: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0329607.r005
Formally Accepted
Acceptance Letter - Frantisek Sudzina, Editor PONE-D-25-06976R2 PLOS ONE Dear Dr. Szalińska, 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. Frantisek Sudzina Academic Editor PLOS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0329607.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 .