Dear Dr. Nazarudin,

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 Sep 27 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,

Leona Cilar Budler

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. 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.

3. Please include a complete copy of PLOS’ questionnaire on inclusivity in global research in your revised manuscript. Our policy for research in this area aims to improve transparency in the reporting of research performed outside of researchers’ own country or community. The policy applies to researchers who have travelled to a different country to conduct research, research with Indigenous populations or their lands, and research on cultural artefacts. The questionnaire can also be requested at the journal’s discretion for any other submissions, even if these conditions are not met.  Please find more information on the policy and a link to download a blank copy of the questionnaire here: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/best-practices-in-research-reporting. Please upload a completed version of your questionnaire as Supporting Information when you resubmit your manuscript.

4. In the online submission form, you indicated that If you require the corresponding data, please contact the corresponding author.

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.

5. Thank you for stating the following financial disclosure:

2025 Major Project of Philosophy and Social Science Research in Colleges and Universities: Research on the Formation Mechanism and Exercise Intervention of College Students' Mental Health Problems in the Era of Digital Intelligence

Please state what role the funders took in the study. If the funders had no role, please state: "The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript."

If this statement is not correct you must amend it as needed.

Please include this amended Role of Funder statement in your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf.

6. Please note that funding information should not appear in any section or other areas of your manuscript. We will only publish funding information present in the Funding Statement section of the online submission form. Please remove any funding-related text from the manuscript.

7. Please amend either the title on the online submission form (via Edit Submission) or the title in the manuscript so that they are identical.

8. Please include a separate caption for each figure in your manuscript.

9. Please ensure that you refer to Figure 1 in your text as, if accepted, production will need this reference to link the reader to the figure.

10. We note you have included a table to which you do not refer in the text of your manuscript. Please ensure that you refer to Table 2 in your text; if accepted, production will need this reference to link the reader to the Table.

11. 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.

12. Please remove all personal information, ensure that the data shared are in accordance with participant consent, and re-upload a fully anonymized data set.

Note: spreadsheet columns with personal information must be removed and not hidden as all hidden columns will appear in the published file.

Additional guidance on preparing raw data for publication can be found in our Data Policy (https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-human-research-participant-data-and-other-sensitive-data) and in the following article: http://www.bmj.com/content/340/bmj.c181.long.

13. 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.

14. 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 :

there are minor issues listed by reviewers. Please read all coments and suggestions to revise your paper. Also, check alljorunal guidelines for paper preparation.

[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: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

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: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

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: Overall Impression: The study explores a relevant topic, examining the relationship between physical exercise, negative emotions, self-efficacy, and smartphone addiction among college students. The use of a large sample size and a chain mediation model strengthens the findings. However, the manuscript could benefit from some revisions to enhance its clarity, depth, and impact.

Pros (Strengths):

• Relevant Topic: Addresses a significant issue affecting college students, with practical implications for mental health interventions.

• Large Sample Size: The study utilizes a large sample (n = 16,355), increasing the statistical power and generalizability of the findings.

• Chain Mediation Model: The use of a chain mediation model provides a more nuanced understanding of the relationships between the variables.

• Clear Hypotheses: The hypotheses are clearly stated and logically derived from the literature.

• Comprehensive Statistical Analysis: The study employs appropriate statistical techniques, including descriptive analysis, correlation analysis, regression analysis, and mediation analysis.

• Data Availability: The authors confirm that all data are fully available without restriction.

• Addresses a gap in research: The research sheds light on the intricate connections between physical activity, mental well-being, self-assurance, and reliance on smartphones among students. It addresses a void in existing knowledge by investigating how these aspects interplay to influence students' emotional experiences.

Cons (Weaknesses):

• Limited Scope: The study focuses solely on college students in China, which may limit the generalizability of the findings to other populations.

• Cross-Sectional Design: The cross-sectional design limits the ability to draw causal inferences.

• Reliance on Self-Report Data: The study relies on self-report measures, which may be subject to recall bias and social desirability bias.

• Lack of Theoretical Depth: While the study mentions Bandura's Social Cognitive Theory (SCT), it could benefit from a more in-depth discussion of the theoretical underpinnings of the relationships between the variables.

• Some Ambiguity in the Discussion: Some interpretations in the discussion section could be more clearly linked back to the empirical findings.

• Clarity Issues: Improve the readability and flow for better engagement.

• Methodological Depth: Give a more detailed explanation of the data collection and analysis methods to enhance transparency and reproducibility.

• Addressing Limitations: Clearly recognize the study's constraints to handle issues like generalizability.

Suggestions for Improvement:

1. Expand the Introduction:

- Provide a more detailed overview of the existing literature on the relationships between physical exercise, negative emotions, self-efficacy, and smartphone addiction.

- Clearly articulate the gaps in the literature that the current study aims to address.

- Consider adding a section on the specific cultural context of college students in China and how it may influence the relationships between the variables.

- Elaborate on the rationale for choosing Henan and Jiangsu provinces.

2. Strengthen the Theoretical Framework:

- Provide a more in-depth discussion of Bandura's Social Cognitive Theory (SCT) and how it applies to the relationships between the variables.

- Explain how SCT can help explain the mediating roles of self-efficacy and smartphone addiction.

- Consider discussing other relevant theories, such as the self-determination theory, to provide a more comprehensive theoretical framework.

3. Address the Limitations of the Study:

- Acknowledge the limitations of the cross-sectional design and the inability to draw causal inferences.

- Discuss the potential for recall bias and social desirability bias due to the use of self-report measures.

- Address the limitations of generalizability due to the focus on college students in China.

4. Refine the Discussion Section:

- Ensure that all interpretations in the discussion section are clearly linked back to the empirical findings.

- Provide a more nuanced discussion of the implications of the findings for mental health interventions.

- Consider discussing the potential for future research to address the limitations of the current study.

- Make stronger recommendations for interventions based on the results.

5. Formatting and Clarity:

- Ensure that the manuscript is free of grammatical errors and typos.

- Use clear and concise language throughout the manuscript.

- Follow the formatting guidelines of the target journal.

- Improving the flow and coherence of paragraphs to maintain reader engagement.

6. Figures and Tables:

- Ensure that all figures and tables are clearly labeled and easy to understand.

- Provide a brief description of the key findings in the figure and table captions.

- In Table 2, clarify the labels "Risk-free," "Medium risk," and "High risk."

7. Consider These Points:

- Clarify how the data was collected, ensuring the process is replicable.

- Discuss how multicollinearity was addressed, especially given the high correlations among some variables.

- Explore whether the relationships found differ significantly across demographic groups (e.g., gender, region).

- Discuss the broader implications for universities and policymakers.

- Offer practical guidance for designing effective interventions based on study findings.

By addressing these weaknesses and incorporating these suggestions, it can enhance the quality and impact of the manuscript.

Reviewer #2: 1.The introduction section lacks a thorough review of previous research. The authors should conduct a more comprehensive analysis of existing studies, including their strengths and limitations, while clearly articulating the innovative aspects of this study and how it differs from prior research in the field.

2.Given that this study employs a cross-sectional design, special attention should be paid to the wording of hypotheses to avoid implying causal relationships. The language should be carefully framed to describe associations rather than causation throughout the manuscript.

3.The study's exclusive focus on Eastern and Central China may limit the generalizability of its findings. This geographical limitation should be explicitly acknowledged and discussed in the study's limitations section.

4.The discussion would benefit from comparative analysis with similar studies conducted in Western populations, as smartphone addiction patterns may vary due to cultural differences and other factors. We recommend adding a dedicated discussion on potential cultural influences, such as the possibility that Chinese students face greater academic pressure leading to different coping mechanisms.

5.While the conclusion appropriately notes the mental health benefits of physical exercise, it fails to provide practical implementation guidance. The authors should include specific recommendations for intervention strategies at the institutional level, such as how universities might practically apply these findings.

6.The reference formatting requires standardization, as some entries include DOI identifiers while others do not. We recommend ensuring all references follow a consistent format in accordance with the journal's style guidelines.

Reviewer #3: 1�Introduction Enhancement:

While the introduction provides context, expand the literature review to engage with prior studies—particularly those examining specific relationships between physical exercise, self-efficacy, and smartphone addiction—and integrate critical perspectives.

2�Theoretical Justification:

Hypotheses require stronger grounding in theoretical models and existing literature. Justify the selection of self-efficacy and smartphone addiction as mediators with explicit theoretical rationale.

3�Psychometric Validation:

Reliability and validity of scales (e.g., MPATS, DASS-21) are insufficiently addressed. Report internal consistency and validity metrics specific to this study’s sample.

4�Mediation Analysis Transparency:

Clarify procedural steps for mediation testing, including model selection criteria and bootstrap implementation methodology.

5�Discussion Depth:

Strengthen interpretation of chain mediation findings and articulate practical implications for university mental health interventions.

6�Design Limitations:

Explicitly acknowledge constraints of the cross-sectional design.

Reviewer #4: This manuscript presents a meaningful study with a respectable sample size and a well-structured analysis. However, there are still some issues that need to be revised.

1、Methods section: While the Physical Activity Rating Scale and other measurement tools demonstrated good internal consistency, the study does not provide detailed information regarding the validation of their psychometric properties, within the current sample.

2、Methods section: The study’s sample, though large, shows an uneven distribution of participants across gender and grade levels. This imbalance may affect the generalizability of the findings. The authors are advised to discuss the potential impact of this sampling bias and clarify whether stratified analysis or weighting methods were employed to address these discrepancies.

3、Methods section: The study relies on self-reported measures for key variables, which may introduce recall or social desirability biases. The authors should elaborate on steps taken to mitigate these biases and discuss the limitations of self-reported data in the context of their findings.

4、Discussion section: The study employs a cross-sectional design, which inherently limits the ability to establish causal relationships between variables. While the chain mediation model is compelling, the authors should explicitly acknowledge this limitation and recommend longitudinal or experimental designs for future research to validate causality.

5、Discussion section: While the results are thoroughly presented, the discussion could benefit from a deeper theoretical integration.

6、Discussion section: The authors note that physical exercise may sometimes correlate positively with negative emotions due to emotional venting.

7、Limitations: The study mentions potential biases from questionnaire responses but does not address the lack of objective measures. Including these limitations would provide a more balanced perspective on the study’s constraints.

**********

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

Dear Dr. Nazarudin,

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 Dec 19 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,

Leona Cilar Budler

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:

Dear,

one reviewer still has doubts about the sampling method of this study, it does not affect the main conclusions of the research. Authors should resolve that.

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

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

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 #2: Yes

Reviewer #4: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #4: Yes

**********

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

The PLOS Data policy

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #4: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #4: Yes

**********

Reviewer #2: The author's paper has been well revised and is recommended for publication.Although I still have some doubts about the sampling method of this study, it does not affect the main conclusions of the research.

Reviewer #4: This study has a large sample size, with relatively precise sampling, conforming to the mainstream paradigm of current scientific research. In particular, the selection of variables in this study is well-founded and thoroughly justified.

**********

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: 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.]

To ensure your figures meet our technical requirements, please review our figure guidelines: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/figures

You may also use PLOS’s free figure tool, NAAS, to help you prepare publication quality figures: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/figures#loc-tools-for-figure-preparation.

NAAS will assess whether your figures meet our technical requirements by comparing each figure against our figure specifications.

The Impact of College Students' Physical Exercise on Negative Emotion: The Chain Mediating Role of Self-efficacy and Smartphone Addiction

PONE-D-25-38262R2

Dear Dr. Nazarudin,

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,

Leona Cilar Budler

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

There are no further comments from reviewers. All comments have been taken into account and paper has been revised.

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

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 #2: Yes

Reviewer #4: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #4: Yes

**********

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

The PLOS Data policy

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #4: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #4: Yes

**********

Reviewer #2: Thank you very much to the editors and authors for their responses. Overall, I believe this paper meets the journal's publication requirements, and the significance of the research is also very good.

Reviewer #4: After two rounds of revisions, the quality of this article has improved a lot. I request the editorial department to publish this paper.

**********

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: No

Reviewer #4: No

**********