Dear Dr. song,

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: Thank you for your submission. In order to proceed further with the editorial process and prepare your manuscript for official publication, we kindly request that you address all reviewer comments thoroughly and revise the manuscript accordingly. Please ensure that your responses are clear, well-structured, and that all requested clarifications, additions, or corrections are incorporated.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Sep 01 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.

• 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,

Nadia Rehman, 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. We note that the grant information you provided in the ‘Funding Information’ and ‘Financial Disclosure’ sections do not match.

When you resubmit, please ensure that you provide the correct grant numbers for the awards you received for your study in the ‘Funding Information’ section.

3. We note that your Data Availability Statement is currently as follows: [All relevant data are within the manuscript and its Supporting Information files.]

Please confirm at this time whether or not your submission contains all raw data required to replicate the results of your study. Authors must share the “minimal data set” for their submission. PLOS defines the minimal data set to consist of the data required to replicate all study findings reported in the article, as well as related metadata and methods (https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-minimal-data-set-definition).

For example, authors should submit the following data:

- The values behind the means, standard deviations and other measures reported;

- The values used to build graphs;

- The points extracted from images for analysis.

Authors do not need to submit their entire data set if only a portion of the data was used in the reported study.

If your submission does not contain these data, please either upload them as Supporting Information files or deposit them to a stable, public repository and provide us with the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers. For a list of recommended repositories, please see https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/recommended-repositories.

If there are ethical or legal restrictions on sharing a de-identified data set, please explain them in detail (e.g., data contain potentially sensitive information, data are owned by a third-party organization, etc.) and who has imposed them (e.g., an ethics committee). Please also provide contact information for a data access committee, ethics committee, or other institutional body to which data requests may be sent. If data are owned by a third party, please indicate how others may request data access.

4. We are unable to open your Supporting Information file [data.sav]. Please kindly revise as necessary and re-upload.

5. Please include captions for your Supporting Information files at the end of your manuscript, and update any in-text citations to match accordingly. Please see our Supporting Information guidelines for more information: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/supporting-information .

6. 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. 

[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?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

Reviewer #4: Partly

**********

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

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

Reviewer #4: Yes

**********

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

The PLOS Data policy

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: No

Reviewer #4: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

Reviewer #4: Yes

**********

Reviewer #1: The study investigates an important and timely topic: the mechanisms through which exercise commitment influences exercise adherence among undergraduate students, with a focus on the chain mediating roles of health beliefs and exercise behavior. The research question is highly relevant to the fields of health psychology and exercise science. Overall, the manuscript is well-structured, the theoretical framework is sound, and the use of a chain mediation model (PROCESS Model 6) is appropriate for the stated hypotheses.

While the study has clear merits and potential for publication, I have identified several issues that must be addressed before it can be considered further. My detailed comments are provided below.

General Comments: The manuscript successfully tests a conceptual model that explains how psychological commitment is translated into sustained behavior. The finding that exercise commitment influences adherence through direct, indirect (via health beliefs and exercise behavior separately), and chain mediation pathways offers a nuanced contribution to the literature. The study's strengths include its relevant topic, a large sample size, a clear theoretical foundation in Social Cognitive Theory and the Health Belief Model, and appropriate statistical methods. However, the manuscript suffers from critical inconsistencies in administrative declarations, errors in referencing, and a need for deeper interpretation of the findings and limitations.

Major Issues

1.Critical Contradiction in Funding Disclosure: There is a major discrepancy regarding the funding source. The online submission information states: “The author(s) received no specific funding for this work.” However, the manuscript text under the "Funding" section explicitly lists: “Guangxi Science and Technology Normal University High-level Talent Research Start-up Project (GXKS2024GKY006).” This is a serious contradiction that undermines the manuscript's integrity. The authors must clarify which statement is correct and ensure all information is consistent across all submitted materials.

2.Critical Contradiction in Data Availability Statement: A similar contradiction exists for data availability. The submission system states: “All relevant data are within the manuscript and its Supporting Information files.” However, the manuscript text under "Data available" states: “Data is available from the corresponding author on request.” The authors must resolve this discrepancy and provide the data without restriction (e.g., as a supporting information file), ensuring the statement is accurate and uniform.

3.Clarification Required for Reference [5]: This citation requires clarification to ensure academic rigor. Reference [5] points to a University of Iowa news article with a listed publication date of January 2025. It is understood that literature can be incorporated into a manuscript after the initial data collection is complete (which occurred in late 2024). However, citing a source with a future publication date is unconventional. For transparency and verifiability, the authors should clarify the status of this source. Was it an advance online publication or an in-press article at the time of writing? Furthermore, while news articles can provide context, citing the original peer-reviewed study being reported on would significantly strengthen the manuscript's scientific foundation. We recommend the authors replace this reference with the primary research article if possible, or at minimum, correct the citation to reflect its precise publication status and provide a DOI if available.

4.Insufficient Discussion of Cross-Sectional Design Limitations: The authors acknowledge the cross-sectional design as a limitation but do not adequately discuss its implications. For a model testing a causal chain (Commitment → Beliefs → Behavior → Adherence), the inability to establish temporal precedence is a fundamental weakness. The discussion should be expanded to explicitly state that the findings represent associations rather than proven causal pathways. The authors should be more cautious with their language throughout the manuscript to reflect the correlational nature of their data.

5.Results Section: On lines 235-236, the text states: "exercise commitment significantly and positively predicted health beliefs (β=0.591, p<0.01), supporting H1." This is incorrect. This result supports the first path in the mediation model, not H1, which posits that exercise commitment predicts exercise adherence. Please correct this statement to accurately reflect what the result supports.

6.Discussion Section: The practical implications are somewhat generic (e.g., "optimize exercise environments"). The authors should provide more specific, actionable recommendations based on their findings. For instance, given that health beliefs were the strongest mediator (accounting for 69.7% of the mediation effect), what specific components of health beliefs (e.g., perceived benefits, self-efficacy) should university interventions target?

Reviewer #2: The study has considerable scientific merit, featuring a robust design and findings that make a significant contribution to the understanding of exercise adherence among university students. The clarity of the writing is also a notable strength.

Its strengths include:

- Rigorous and Appropriate Statistical Analysis: The statistical analysis was conducted correctly and with rigor.

- Addressing Common Method Bias: The use of Harman’s single-factor test and the finding that the first factor accounted for only 36.21% of the total variance (below the 40% threshold) is a strength, indicating that common method bias was not a significant concern.

- Controlled and Detailed Correlations.

- Hypotheses Supported by the Data: All hypotheses (H1, H2, H3, and H4) were consistently supported by the findings, with significant indirect effects and confidence intervals that excluded zero. This demonstrates the validity of the proposed relationships.

- Instrument Handling and Reliability: Validated scales were used to measure key variables, and the high reliability of these scales indicates strong data quality.

- Clarity and Comprehensibility of Language: The manuscript is presented in a clear and intelligible manner, written in standard English, with correct and unambiguous language that facilitates reading and understanding.

- Valuable Practical and Theoretical Implications: The findings provide valuable insights for improving exercise adherence among university students, emphasizing the importance of fostering exercise commitment, cultivating health beliefs, and promoting exercise behavior. The study also offers theoretical and practical implications for reforming physical education and promoting health initiatives in universities.

- Ethical Approval and Informed Consent.

Points to Note or Improve:

- Inconsistency in Funding Statement: There is a contradiction in the funding section. Initially, it states that “The authors received no specific funding for this work.” However, it later mentions specific funding: “Start-up Research Project for High-Level Talent at Guangxi University of Science and Technology (GXKS2024GKY006).” The authors must clarify and reconcile this information to ensure transparency and accuracy in the funding disclosure.

Reviewer #3: Regarding the availability of the data = Partially. The manuscript mentions that the data are available upon request from the corresponding author, which does not fully align with PLOS’s data availability policy that requires open access to underlying data without restriction (with limited exceptions). However, a supporting file (data.sav) is included as a downloadable item via Editorial Manager, which may satisfy the policy depending on its content. This should be clarified with a statement confirming the availability of raw, anonymized data behind all figures and statistical results, such as means, SDs, and individual scores.

Recommendation: The Data Availability Statement must be updated to confirm that the .sav file is public, anonymized, and sufficient for replication.

Reviewer #4: First of all, I would like to congratulate the authors for addressing such a relevant and timely topic as exercise adherence among university students. The study is well-focused, clearly states its objectives, and is appropriately grounded in a robust theoretical framework, effectively drawing upon Social Cognitive Theory and the Health Belief Model. The authors have successfully integrated theory and empirical findings, clearly formulating hypotheses supported by current and relevant literature.

I particularly commend the methodological choices made in the study, including the use of validated scales with very high internal reliability, which considerably strengthens the credibility and robustness of the findings. Additionally, the statistical analysis is rigorous and well-detailed, correctly employing Hayes’ PROCESS macro with bootstrapping for the chain mediation analysis. The interpretation of results is clear, balanced, and consistent with the reported findings.

However, from a constructive viewpoint, I would suggest addressing a few points to further enhance the quality and impact of the manuscript:

Study design: The main limitation of this study is its cross-sectional design, significantly constraining the ability to draw clear causal conclusions. Although the authors acknowledge this limitation, I would recommend emphasizing it more explicitly in the discussion. Future longitudinal or experimental studies would be very useful to better validate the causal relationships proposed.

Potential biases associated with self-report measures: While the statistical test indicated that common method bias was not dominant, it would be helpful to explicitly state the preventive measures implemented to minimize such biases (e.g., complete anonymity, clear instructions encouraging sincere responses).

Data availability: Although the authors state that data are available without restriction, it would be beneficial to specify explicitly the repository or exact platform where the dataset can be accessed. This would strengthen transparency and allow other researchers to easily replicate your analyses.

In summary, I believe this manuscript has great potential to contribute significantly to the field of promoting healthy habits among university students. By addressing these minor recommendations, the manuscript will fully meet editorial standards and provide notable value to the scientific community interested in these topics.

**********

what does this mean? ). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

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

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

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

Reviewer #3: No

Reviewer #4: 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.

Dear Dr. song,

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 manuscript demonstrates strong potential and addresses an important research problem. However, to ensure clarity and avoid overstatement, I recommend Minor Revisions prior to acceptance. Specifically, the authors should:

1. Adjust causal language to reflect the cross-sectional design.
2. Clarify the scope of generalizability.
3. Differentiate more clearly between “exercise behavior” and “exercise adherence.”
4. Strengthen the theoretical integration and expand practical implications.
5. Correct minor inconsistencies in ethics approval and references.

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

Please submit your revised manuscript by Nov 09 2025 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org . When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

• 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 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,

Nadia Rehman, 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.

Additional Editor Comments:

*****The sample is restricted to universities in Guangxi Province, which may limit external validity. This should be explicitly stated in both the Abstract and Conclusion to avoid overgeneralization to all undergraduates.

****(Exercise Behavior vs. Exercise Adherence):While measured with different instruments, the conceptual distinction between these constructs could be further clarified in the Methods.

****The manuscript applies both Social Cognitive Theory and the Health Belief Model but largely in parallel. Greater emphasis on how their integration offers novel explanatory power would strengthen the contribution.

****Recommendations such as “incentive mechanisms” remain vague. Expanding this section with concrete examples (e.g., digital self-monitoring tools, peer-led initiatives, or curriculum-based interventions) would enhance applied value.

****Some foundational citations are dated (e.g., Glanz, 1997). Consider balancing with more recent literature (2022–2024) to reflect current advances. Read and cite https://doi.org/10.1186/s40359-025-02767-0 ; https://doi.org/10.1108/QEA-06-2024-0054

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

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #4: All comments have been addressed

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

Reviewer #4: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

Reviewer #4: Yes

**********

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

The PLOS Data policy

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

Reviewer #4: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

Reviewer #4: Yes

**********

Reviewer #1: There is a significant discrepancy concerning the ethics committee approval number that must be resolved prior to publication. This is a critical issue for research integrity and reproducibility.

Inconsistent Ethics Approval Numbers: In the "Ethics Statement" section on page 4, the approval number is listed as GKSTY-2024032. However, in the main body of the text, under section "2.1 Survey Subject" on page 15, the approval number is cited as GKSTY-2023056.

This inconsistency in fundamental research documentation is a serious concern. The authors must verify the correct approval number and ensure it is stated consistently throughout the final version of the manuscript.

Reviewer #2: The authors have comprehensively and satisfactorily addressed the comments from the reviewers and the editor, which is a key indicator of the scientific rigor required by the journal. The manuscript presents original, methodologically sound research with precise and well-discussed results, and it meets all ethical and data transparency requirements. Therefore, yes, the manuscript is of sufficient quality for publication, as it demonstrates a high technical standard and complies with the journal's scientific and ethical standards.

Reviewer #4: Thank you for an attentive and high‑quality revision. You have addressed the key issues from the previous round: the funding and data‑availability disclosures are now clear, the interpretation reflects the correlational nature of a cross‑sectional design, the path labeling in the Results has been corrected, and the practical implications are more concrete. These changes substantially strengthen methodological transparency and alignment with PLOS ONE’s criteria for publication and data policy.

**********

what does this mean? ). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

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

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

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

Reviewer #4: 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

Influence of Exercise Commitment on Exercise Adherence Among Undergraduate Students: Chain Mediation Role of Health Beliefs and Exercise Behavior

PONE-D-25-28166R2

Dear Dr. song,

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,

Nadia Rehman, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments: