PONE-D-24-09967 Lead yourself to the zone and be happy: the effect of self-leadership development on flow and happiness PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Vargas,

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 13 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,

Sitanshu Sekhar Das

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. Thank you for stating the following in the Competing Interests section:

“I have read the journal's policy and the authors of this manuscript have the following competing interests: the first and fifth authors are consultants with the organization that delivered the self-leadership training reported in the current paper.”

Please confirm that this does not alter your adherence to all PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials, by including the following statement: "This does not alter our adherence to  PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials.” (as detailed online in our guide for authors http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/competing-interests).  If there are restrictions on sharing of data and/or materials, please state these. Please note that we cannot proceed with consideration of your article until this information has been declared.

Please include your updated Competing Interests statement in your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf.

3. When completing the data availability statement of the submission form, you indicated that you will make your data available on acceptance. We strongly recommend all authors decide on a data sharing plan before acceptance, as the process can be lengthy and hold up publication timelines. Please note that, though access restrictions are acceptable now, your entire data will need to be made freely accessible if your manuscript is accepted for publication. This policy applies to all data except where public deposition would breach compliance with the protocol approved by your research ethics board. If you are unable to adhere to our open data policy, please kindly revise your statement to explain your reasoning and we will seek the editor's input on an exemption. Please be assured that, once you have provided your new statement, the assessment of your exemption will not hold up the peer review process.

4. We notice that your supplementary tables are included in the manuscript file. Please remove them and upload them with the file type 'Supporting Information'. Please ensure that each Supporting Information file has a legend listed in the manuscript after the references list.

Additional Editor Comments:

The comments of the reviewers and the points raised are pertinent. I invite you to address all the comments.

[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: Partly

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

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

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

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

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: No

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

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

Reviewer #1: Thanks for the given opportunity to review this manuscript. I suggest the following to improve the manuscript standard.

1. At the end of the introduction section add a paragraph to say about this study contribution.

2. In the introduction section I could see the literature review. try to highlight the gap and inconsistencies.

3. Before developing the hypothesis add a paragraph about the theory supporting the theoretical model proposed in this study.

Reviewer #2: Thanks for providing the opportunity to review this paper.

The manuscript examines the relationship between self-leadership, flow and happiness at the workplace. The study also examines the mediating effect of flow on the relationship between self-leadership and happiness.

The study is opportune and relevant in the context of the current unpredictable times, at the individual and the organizational level. The paper is well written and presents fluid thinking. However, I have a few suggestions that the authors may consider:

1. Introduction

I tried looking for the research gap that the authors are trying the bridge. It was difficult to identify the research context in the lines 122-126 that the work is attempting to fulfil. To my mind, this should be brought forward in the structure of the study.

At times, the overall argumentation was in itself answering the question that the authors are trying to respond. For example, in line 164, authors write that “happiness in the 164 workplace is beneficial for both employees and organizations” – which has been empirically proven in the past. In the next lines (165-167), authors argue the benefits of the self-leadership, which should be the part of hypotheses development.

Authors are suggested to rewrite the “Introduction” so as to keep the relevant portions building the overall research context, elucidating the purpose that the research is trying to fulfil. Authors may choose to create a separate heading explaining the variables of the study in detail. For example, lines 58-63 highlight the beneficial effects of self-leadership, followed by the explanation of the mechanism in the next paragraph. The next paragraph (lines 84-94) takes the entire narrative back to the advantages of self-leadership, which takes the readers back to the lines 58-63.

2. Hypotheses under Investigation

I was expecting better and nuanced argumentation here supporting the hypotheses. Authors should highlight the individual hypotheses, building upon the previous literature and their own understanding of the substantive variables of the study. My suggestion is the bring some part of the ‘Introduction’ to this section which potentially may strengthen the overall arguments.

The argumentation for hypotheses 3-4 is based upon a few studies (e.g., Marques-Quinteiro et al., 2019) only. The authors finally ‘predict’ the hypotheses. To my mind, I do not find enough support for the hypotheses 3-4 in the manuscript, and based upon that, author argue in lines 199-201 about the hypotheses, which appears the pretty intuitive. Authors are strongly suggested to strengthen this part.

The overall conceptual model could have been presented to give a better understanding of the hypothesized relationships.

3. Materials and methods

The data was collected in 2016-2020. Though the retrospective analysis was approved by the ethics committee (I do not question that), the entire training was provided following Marques-Quinteiro et al. (2019) (line 233). This chronology is difficult to understand. Authors should explain that how they collected data from a program in 2016, when the training provided was based on a 2019 study.

It is a good practice to provide the in-line citation for methods used (e.g., line 360).

4. Results

Authors should explain the probable reasons behind the non-statistical significance of some of the results (e.g., self-leadership contrast between 3-4). Same goes for happiness also, where half the times, the results were not statistically significant (p-value > 0.05).

5. Discussion

Lines 527-560 are not appropriately placed in the discussion. Line 561 onwards, the findings of the study are discussed. Hypothesis 1 is an important finding of the study, however, I have concerns about the lines 564 – 566 because the study did not examine the ‘strategies’ precisely. The same is reflected in the authors' interpretation of the results also with the word ‘most probably’ (line 564).

Lines 580-593 are avoidable as it takes the readers back to the methodology (e.g., choice of LMM in line 581, line 590).

Authors should discuss the hypotheses individually (e.g., line 594). Hypotheses 2 and 3 are supported together, though in the hypotheses development phase, those were conceptualized differently. Regarding non-supported hypothesis 4, the explanation could be made stronger conceptually, and not just because of the process of data collection. Authors are suggested to look beyond the methods to explain this part.

Overall, this work is of sound relevance to handle the autonomy and self-leadership for the employees working in different organizations. I am hopeful that authors would find the suggestions helpful in developing this study better.

**********

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: Murugan Pattusamy

Reviewer #2: Yes: Nishit Kumar Sinha

**********

[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: Plos One.docx

PONE-D-24-09967R1 Lead yourself to the zone and be happy: the effect of self-leadership development on flow and happiness PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Vargas,

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.

The reviewers have appreciated the revisions to your manuscript, which address the previous requests. However, a new reviewer has suggested further changes to the Introduction, as well as to the Discussion and Conclusions (see below).

I fully support these suggestions and encourage you to implement them, particularly those regarding the Discussion and Conclusions, which should flow logically from the results and avoid overstatement or speculation.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Sep 15 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,

Francesco Marcatto, Ph.D.

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.

[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 #2: 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 #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Partly

**********

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

Reviewer #2: 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 #2: 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 #2: Yes

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 #2: This work has the potential to bring meaningful contribution to the academic literature. I wish you all the best.

Reviewer #3: General comment

The two previous reviewers provided consistent and detailed feedback, primarily addressing theoretical clarity, argumentative structure, and interpretation of results. The authors have responded in a timely and constructive manner, improving the introduction, clarifying time-related aspects, and reorganizing the discussion. While no major issues remain unresolved, some further refinements—particularly in the introduction and discussion—could enhance the overall clarity and consistency of the manuscript. These are outlined in the comments below (Lines numbers are referred to the version of the manuscript with track changes).

Comment on lines 52-63 (introduction):

In the first paragraph, different constructs such as happiness, well-being, and engagement are mentioned without being clearly defined or differentiated. They are presented as if interchangeable, which may confuse readers and weaken the conceptual clarity of the introduction. I recommend clarifying each term and its specific relevance to the study.

Comment on lines 165-166 (introduction):

The sentence “What remains to be known is how this self-regulation process can impact on happiness” could be rephrased for improved clarity and fluency. The expression “what remains to be known” sounds slightly awkward in academic English. You might consider alternatives such as “An open question is...” or “It is still unclear how...”.

Comment on lines 268–271(introduction):

This section seems to contradict earlier parts of the introduction, where job satisfaction is presented as a proxy for happiness. Here, instead, the two constructs are clearly distinguished, with happiness being described as dispositional and less dependent on contextual factors. I would recommend clarifying the relationship between job satisfaction and happiness earlier in the introduction, and maintaining conceptual consistency throughout the section.

Comments on lines 885-893 (Discussion- session “Self-leadership in the organizational context: practical implications for employees’ positive affect):

While this section makes a strong case for the practical value of self-leadership in organizational settings, the argument about productivity may be overstated. The current study did not include a measure of productivity, so any inference about performance outcomes should be made cautiously or supported by external evidence more explicitly.

Comments on lines 946-950 (Conclusions):

This paragraph may slightly overstate the theoretical and practical implications of the findings. While the study provides interesting evidence of associations between self-leadership, flow, and happiness, it does not directly assess general well-being or organizational success. Consider rephrasing to better align claims with the actual data.

**********

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 #2: Yes: Nishit Kumar Sinha

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.

Lead yourself to the zone and be happy: the effect of self-leadership development on flow and happiness

PONE-D-24-09967R2

Dear Dr. Vargas,

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. For questions related to billing, please contact billing support.

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,

Francesco Marcatto, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments: