Research on the development and differentiation of the physical literacy scale for Chinese college students

Rongjing Ni; Ying Yu

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0348776

Peer Review History

Original SubmissionDecember 21, 2025
16 Feb 2026 Decision Letter - Jennifer Tucker, Editor -->PONE-D-25-65782-->-->Research on the Development and Differentiation of the Physical Literacy Scale for Chinese College Students-->-->PLOS One Dear Dr. Yu, 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 note that we have only been able to secure a single reviewer to assess your manuscript. We are issuing a decision on your manuscript at this point to prevent further delays in the evaluation of your manuscript. Please be aware that the editor who handles your revised manuscript might find it necessary to invite additional reviewers to assess this work once the revised manuscript is submitted. However, we will aim to proceed on the basis of this single review if possible. -->--> Please submit your revised manuscript by Apr 02 2026 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 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, Jennifer Tucker, PhD Staff Editor PLOS One Journal Requirements: 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. Your ethics statement should only appear in the Methods section of your manuscript. If your ethics statement is written in any section besides the Methods, please move it to the Methods section and delete it from any other section. Please ensure that your ethics statement is included in your manuscript, as the ethics statement entered into the online submission form will not be published alongside your manuscript. 3. We note that you have indicated that there are restrictions to data sharing for this study. PLOS only allows data to be available upon request if there are legal or ethical restrictions on sharing data publicly. For more information on unacceptable data access restrictions, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-unacceptable-data-access-restrictions Before we proceed with your manuscript, please address the following prompts: a) If there are ethical or legal restrictions on sharing a de-identified data set, please explain them in detail (e.g., data contain potentially identifying or sensitive patient information, data are owned by a third-party organization, etc.) and who has imposed them (e.g., a Research Ethics Committee or Institutional Review Board, etc.). Please also provide contact information for a data access committee, ethics committee, or other institutional body to which data requests may be sent. b) If there are no restrictions, please upload the minimal anonymized data set necessary to replicate your study findings 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. You also have the option of uploading the data as Supporting Information files, but we would recommend depositing data directly to a data repository if possible. We will update your Data Availability statement on your behalf to reflect the information you provide. 4. 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? The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented. --> Reviewer #1: Partly ******** -->2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? --> Reviewer #1: Yes ****** -->3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available? The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.--> Reviewer #1: No ****** -->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: 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: This manuscript presents the development and validation of a Physical Literacy Scale for Chinese college students using Delphi methodology, item analysis, and exploratory factor analysis (EFA). The topic is relevant and contributes to the growing field of physical literacy assessment in higher education populations. The study demonstrates methodological effort and large sample size (n = 3,077), which strengthens statistical robustness. Other strengths of this manuscript include a systematic scale development process and a good statistical screening steps. However, several areas require clarification and refinement, particularly in methodological transparency, statistical justification and in the theoretical framing. Detailed suggestions can be obtained from the attached reviewer report. ****** -->6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files. If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public. Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.--> Reviewer #1: No ******** [NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.] 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. Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Formal reviewer report_PONE-D-25-65782.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0348776.r001
Revision 1
30 Mar 2026 Author Response Point-to-point response I am deeply grateful to the reviewers for your valuable suggestions on my research. I would also like to thank the editor for their assistance throughout this process. I have carefully considered these comments and revised the manuscript accordingly. Below are my responses to each suggestion: 1. The author should add specific statistical values in the abstract. Some relatively important research findings have been supplemented in the abstract. 2. Ensure all abbreviations are defined at first use (e.g., KMO, Ca, Cr, Cs). Based on the modification suggestions you have proposed, the full forms of these abbreviations have been provided, such as in lines 146, 147, 281, etc. 3. The author is advised to define and clarify the theoretical model that underpins the four-dimension structure. Mention if the framework is adapted from existing models or newly conceptualized by the authors. It has been Supplement in lines 110-112 that the four-dimensional framework for physical literacy referenced the Physical Literacy Evaluation Index System Part 1: Adults and Part 2: Adolescents, rather than being newly constructed. This indicator system model was public released by an official Chinese institution and holds a certain degree of authority within China，It has been widely recognized and referenced by numerous scholars in China. 4. The manuscript requires clear justification of the expert selection criteria. Explain if there was a sample size calculation formula or a predefined consensus threshold in selecting the 16 experts. The additions and modifications have been made according to your suggestions, the criteria for expert selection—including professional fields, regional breadth, and corresponding efficiency, etc—have been outlined in Lines 134–140. The selection of expert numbers also references consensus standards in the field of scale development and includes citations. 5. Multiple screening methods were used in the study namely, Internal item correlation, Cronbach’s Alpha, and EFA. It is good if the author can include the sequence of deletion steps, preferably in a flowchart. Justify the use of PCA instead of the common factor analysis. The entry screening process has been visualized as a flowchart per your suggestion. The image is displayed on page 23, with a reference provided at line 365. 6. Authors should justify the cutoffs of 0.9 and 0.2 with proper citation and to explain the reason a 50% threshold was chosen. We have incorporated your suggestions by adding reference annotations to the numerical standards (0.9, 0.2, 50%, etc.) within the Internal Item Correlation Method on line 259, referencing the commonly accepted consensus standards for this method in China. 7. Provide information on how the extracted 10 factor structure related to the originally mentioned four dimensions. We have added relevant explanations in lines 349-356. These 10 factors belong to the second-order factors. 8. The ethical statement is provided appropriately. However, clarify how the anonymity was maintained in the dataset. Confirm whether participation was voluntary and whether any compensation was provided. We have detailed the ethics statement under the Methods section as requested in the email, and provided supplementary explanations regarding anonymity, voluntariness, and other details, primarily in lines 117-125. 9. The restriction on data availability restricted the reviewer from being able to check on the results and the presentation. Regarding data acquisition, we regret that we are unable to present the complete dataset at this time. As this portion of the data is also relevant to another ongoing research project within our group, we cannot disclose it in its entirety. Once all related studies are completed, we will be able to provide the full dataset. 10. Minor language editing is required. The language in the manuscript has been polished. We have carefully implemented the revisions you suggested above. Should you have any further valuable suggestions, please feel free to share them. We will continue to spare no effort in refining this work. Thank you once again for your invaluable assistance with this research. Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0348776.r002
9 Apr 2026 Decision Letter - Othman Alfuqaha, Editor -->PONE-D-25-65782R1-->-->Research on the Development and Differentiation of the Physical Literacy Scale for Chinese College Students-->-->PLOS One Dear Dr. Yu, 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 May 24 2026 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 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. As the corresponding author, your ORCID iD is verified in the submission system and will appear in the published article. PLOS supports the use of ORCID, and we encourage all coauthors to register for an ORCID iD and use it as well. Please encourage your coauthors to verify their ORCID iD within the submission system before final acceptance, as unverified ORCID iDs will not appear in the published article. Only the individual author can complete the verification step; PLOS staff cannot verify ORCID iDs on behalf of authors. We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript. Kind regards, Othman A. Alfuqaha, Ph.D. Academic Editor PLOS One Journal Requirements: 1. 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. 2. 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 Authors, Thank you for your detailed point-by-point response and for the revisions made to the manuscript. I read your paper with great pleasure. Before proceeding with the final decision, I would appreciate your clarification on the following points to ensure that all reviewer concerns have been fully and rigorously addressed: - Some methodological justifications (e.g., cut-off values, PCA vs. common factor analysis, and expert selection criteria) would benefit from stronger support through international references, not only local or regional standards. - The explanation of the relationship between the 10 extracted factors and the original four dimensions requires clearer conceptual justification to ensure theoretical coherence. - Regarding data availability, while your justification is understood, please include a formal data availability statement in the manuscript clarifying access conditions. - Minor language improvements were mentioned; however, I notice some problems in whole manuscript. Please make sure that all are fine. - Please confirm that all ethical considerations (anonymity, voluntariness, and consent procedures) are explicitly and clearly stated within the Methods section. -Finally, I would like to see a Figure in AMOS program with all items and subdminesions. Once these points are clearly addressed, the manuscript will be in a stronger position for final evaluation. Thank you for your efforts and cooperation. Best regards, Dr. Alfuqaha [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.] 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. --> https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0348776.r003
Revision 2
16 Apr 2026 Author Response Point-to-Point Response Dear Academic Editor/Reviewer, Thank you very much for your recognition of my research. We would also like to express my sincere gratitude for your valuable suggestions on improving the manuscript, which have been instrumental in refining its content. We have carefully addressed each of the proposed revisions, and my detailed responses are provided below. 1- Some methodological justifications (e.g., cut-off values, PCA vs. common factor analysis, and expert selection criteria) would benefit from stronger support through international references, not only local or regional standards. Following your valuable suggestions, we have incorporated relevant references from the international literature into the sections concerning cut-off values, factor analysis, and expert selection. These additions can be found in lines 144, 258–260, 268–272, and 293. 2- The explanation of the relationship between the 10 extracted factors and the original four dimensions requires clearer conceptual justification to ensure theoretical coherence. We have further clarified the relationships between the four main dimensions and the ten extracted factors in lines 116–121 and 357–364. These ten factors represent lower-order constructs derived from the original four dimensions. Additionally, to present these relationships more intuitively, we have added Figure 5. 3- Regarding data availability, while your justification is understood, please include a formal data availability statement in the manuscript clarifying access conditions. We appreciate you bringing this important point to our attention. In response, we have now added a formal data availability statement, which can be found on line 558. 4- Minor language improvements were mentioned; however, I notice some problems in whole manuscript. Please make sure that all are fine. We have carefully implemented the revisions you requested, including adjustments to grammar, formatting, and wording. 5- Please confirm that all ethical considerations (anonymity, voluntariness, and consent procedures) are explicitly and clearly stated within the Methods section. Thank you very much for raising this important issue. In response, we have now clearly outlined the relevant information regarding “anonymity, voluntariness, and consent procedures” in lines 128–130. 6-Finally, I would like to see a Figure in AMOS program with all items and subdminesions. As you recommended, we have now added a complete AMOS model diagram （Figure5）to better illustrate the relationships among factors and items at each level, and its description begins at line 352. We greatly appreciate the constructive feedback you have provided throughout the review process. In the revised manuscript, we have carefully addressed all of the comments and concerns raised. We believe that the changes made have significantly strengthened the paper. Should any further revisions be required, please do not hesitate to let us know. Thank you again for your time and expertise. Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Response_to_Reviewers_auresp_2.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0348776.r004
21 Apr 2026 Decision Letter - Othman Alfuqaha, Editor Research on the Development and Differentiation of the Physical Literacy Scale for Chinese College Students PONE-D-25-65782R2 Dear Dr. Ying Yu, 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, Othman A. Alfuqaha, Ph.D. Academic Editor PLOS One Additional Editor Comments (optional): Dear Authors, Thank you for submitting your manuscript to the journal and for your careful revisions throughout the review process. After a thorough evaluation of the reviewers’ comments and your responses, I am pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been accepted for publication. Dr. Alfuqaha Reviewers' comments: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0348776.r005
Formally Accepted
Acceptance Letter - Othman Alfuqaha, Editor PONE-D-25-65782R2 PLOS One Dear Dr. Yu, 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. You will receive an invoice from PLOS for your publication fee after your manuscript has reached the completed accept phase. If you receive an email requesting payment before acceptance or for any other service, this may be a phishing scheme. Learn how to identify phishing emails and protect your accounts at https://explore.plos.org/phishing. 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. Othman A. Alfuqaha Academic Editor PLOS One https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0348776.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 .