-->PONE-D-26-07062-->-->Unstructured Spare Time as an International Predictor of Adolescent Crime-->-->PLOS One

Dear Dr. Buil-Gil,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. The reviewers recommend minor revisions. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

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

This manuscript presents a strong and valuable contribution, drawing on an exceptionally large cross-national dataset to examine the relationship between unstructured spare time and adolescent offending. The analyses are generally well-executed, and the consistency of findings is particularly compelling.

However, a small number of issues should be addressed before publication. In particular, the authors should (1) adopt more cautious, non-causal language when interpreting results, (2) clarify and justify the operationalisation of unstructured spare time, (3) improve transparency around methodological choices (including model specification and statistical tests), and (4) briefly discuss limitations related to cross-national comparability and sample representativeness. Minor structural improvements (e.g., positioning of the methods section) would also enhance clarity of this already good manuscript.

These are relatively minor revisions that will strengthen the manuscript without requiring substantial reanalysis. Subject to these, the article is suitable for publication.

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

Please submit your revised manuscript by May 27 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,

Angelo Moretti, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS One

Journal Requirements:

-->1. When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.-->--> -->-->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. Thank you for stating in your Funding Statement: -->-->In Argentina, this study was funded by the Scientific and Technological Research Fund (PICT 2019 call) and by the Office of Science and Technology at the National University of Córdoba (PIDTA 2023 call). Data collection in the UK was funded by the Nuffield Foundation, grant number JUS/FR-000022640. The Bosnia and Herzegovina research team extends special thanks to the Zurich University of Applied Sciences for supporting data collection through the Swiss National Science Foundation (Project No. 192539). The Slovenian part of the research was supported by the Slovenian Research and Innovation Agency (ARIS), project on Local Safety and Security – comparison between rural and urban environments, and its subsection on self-reported juvenile delinquency and victimization (Grant No. P5-0397). Patrik Manzoni and Sandrine Haymoz thank the Swiss National Science Foundation (Project No. 192539) for funding the survey conducted in Switzerland and the Balkan countries. The ISRD4 study in Estonia was supported by the project ‘Establishing a Special Treatment System for Juveniles,’ funded under the program ‘Local Development and Poverty Reduction’ of the European Economic Area and Norway Grants 2014–2021 (Grant Agreement No. 7-8/3771), administered by the Estonian Ministry of Justice and implemented by the University of Tartu. The ISRD4 study in Brazil was partially supported by the São Paulo Research Foundation (FAPESP), under grants #2021/04732-2, #2022/10125-4, #2022/13907-3, and #2024/00906-4.-->--> -->-->Please provide an amended statement that declares *all* the funding or sources of support (whether external or internal to your organization) received during this study, as detailed online in our guide for authors at http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submit-now. Please also include the statement “There was no additional external funding received for this study.” in your updated Funding Statement. -->-->Please include your amended Funding Statement within your cover letter. We will change the online submission form on your behalf.-->--> -->-->4. Thank you for stating the following financial disclosure: -->-->In Argentina, this study was funded by the Scientific and Technological Research Fund (PICT 2019 call) and by the Office of Science and Technology at the National University of Córdoba (PIDTA 2023 call). Data collection in the UK was funded by the Nuffield Foundation, grant number JUS/FR-000022640. The Bosnia and Herzegovina research team extends special thanks to the Zurich University of Applied Sciences for supporting data collection through the Swiss National Science Foundation (Project No. 192539). The Slovenian part of the research was supported by the Slovenian Research and Innovation Agency (ARIS), project on Local Safety and Security – comparison between rural and urban environments, and its subsection on self-reported juvenile delinquency and victimization (Grant No. P5-0397). Patrik Manzoni and Sandrine Haymoz thank the Swiss National Science Foundation (Project No. 192539) for funding the survey conducted in Switzerland and the Balkan countries. The ISRD4 study in Estonia was supported by the project ‘Establishing a Special Treatment System for Juveniles,’ funded under the program ‘Local Development and Poverty Reduction’ of the European Economic Area and Norway Grants 2014–2021 (Grant Agreement No. 7-8/3771), administered by the Estonian Ministry of Justice and implemented by the University of Tartu. The ISRD4 study in Brazil was partially supported by the São Paulo Research Foundation (FAPESP), under grants #2021/04732-2, #2022/10125-4, #2022/13907-3, and #2024/00906-4.  -->--> -->-->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.-->--> -->-->5. We note that you have indicated that there are restrictions to data sharing for this study. For studies involving human research participant data or other sensitive data, we encourage authors to share de-identified or anonymized data. However, when data cannot be publicly shared for ethical reasons, we allow authors to make their data sets available upon request. For 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. Please see http://www.bmj.com/content/340/bmj.c181.long for guidelines on how to de-identify and prepare clinical data for publication. 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.-->--> -->-->Please update your Data Availability statement in the submission form accordingly.-->--> -->-->6. 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.-->--> -->-->7. We note that there is identifying data in the Supporting Information file <clean_SI>. Due to the inclusion of these potentially identifying data, we have removed this file from your file inventory. Prior to sharing human research participant data, authors should consult with an ethics committee to ensure data are shared in accordance with participant consent and all applicable local laws.-->--> -->-->Data sharing should never compromise participant privacy. It is therefore not appropriate to publicly share personally identifiable data on human research participants. The following are examples of data that should not be shared:-->--> -->-->-Name, initials, physical address-->-->-Ages more specific than whole numbers-->-->-Internet protocol (IP) address-->-->-Specific dates (birth dates, death dates, examination dates, etc.)-->-->-Contact information such as phone number or email address-->-->-Location data-->-->-ID numbers that seem specific (long numbers, include initials, titled “Hospital ID”) rather than random (small numbers in numerical order)-->--> -->-->Data that are not directly identifying may also be inappropriate to share, as in combination they can become identifying. For example, data collected from a small group of participants, vulnerable populations, or private groups should not be shared if they involve indirect identifiers (such as sex, ethnicity, location, etc.) that may risk the identification of study participants.-->--> -->-->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.-->--> -->-->Please remove or anonymize all personal information (<specific identifying information in file to be removed>), ensure that the data shared are in accordance with participant consent, and re-upload a fully anonymized data set. Please note that spreadsheet columns with personal information must be removed and not hidden as all hidden columns will appear in the published file.-->--> -->-->8. 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.-->--> -->-->9. 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.

10. 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. 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: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

-->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: 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: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

-->5. Review Comments to the Author

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

Reviewer #1: This is an impressive and comprehensive study which draws on survey data from just under 60K young people across 21 countries. It explores the relationship between adolescent’s (aged between 13-17 years old) unstructured spare time and self-reported offending, for both the prevalence (probability of offending) and incidence (scale of that offending) of self-reported offending. The research shows that increased unstructured spare time out of the home is associated with higher levels of offending and is consistent across most countries in the study.

The paper addresses the relationship between unstructured spare time and adolescent offending with compelling results. The more unstructured spare time out of the home was associated with greater levels of offending, which makes sense. Especially, where there is also a lack of parental control and coupled with delinquent peers and greater exposure to crime. The model accounts for unstructured spare time at home and unstructured spare time out of the home, both of which increase the odds and scale of offending. The model also accounts for structured spare time at home, which has the opposite effect and reduces the odds and scale of offending. I therefore wondered, for completeness, what about the structured spare time out of the home? On lines 279-280 you say that the survey did not include measures of structured out of home spare time – that is such a shame. But, is there any way this could be approximated given the information we do know? If not, I think there is scope for some discussion to address this more explicitly. The focus of the paper is of course, the unstructured spare time and its effect on adolescent crime but given time is definitive,

The paper reports the results straight after the introduction, while the materials and methods section features at the end. The paper would benefit from moving the materials and methods section to before the results as with the normal convention of a research paper. This would make the study clearer from the outset and address the questions that arose as I read the results and discussion sections. The materials and methods section did answer all my questions that had but it would aid the interpretation of the results if it had featured earlier.

The study uses the International Self-Report Delinquency Study, a school-based survey instrument to measure self-reported offending. The supplementary material notes that the sample is not nationally representative and comparisons should be interpreted between cities rather than entire countries. For clarity, this could be made explicit within the main paper.

The study uses a Quasi-Poisson model to model the offending counts which is sensible. Out of curiosity, did the authors consider using a Negative-Binomial model? It would be interesting to assess the model fit and compare estimates from these two models.

Reviewer #2: The manuscript “Unstructured Spare Time as an International Predictor of Adolescent Crime” examines the relationship between adolescents’ time use and self-reported offending across 21 countries using a very large and valuable dataset. The paper addresses an important question in criminology and makes a potentially significant empirical contribution by moving beyond the usual single-country focus that dominates the literature on leisure and delinquency.

Overall, I find the paper interesting, well-executed in many respects, and clearly positioned within existing research, but I also believe that several conceptual and methodological issues need to be addressed before it can be considered for publication. In its current form, the manuscript tends to overinterpret its findings and would benefit from greater precision regarding what can (and cannot) be concluded from the data.

General assessment

One of the strongest aspects of the paper is the dataset itself. The use of the ISRD4 data, with more than 58,000 adolescents across a diverse set of countries, provides a level of external validity that is rarely achieved in this line of research. The consistency of the results across countries is also compelling and, in principle, supports the authors’ argument that unstructured spare time—particularly out-of-home—is a robust correlate of offending.

At the same time, the manuscript would benefit from a more cautious and theoretically grounded interpretation of these findings. The current framing sometimes suggests a level of causal inference that is not supported by the cross-sectional design, and some measurement and modeling choices require further clarification and justification.

On causal interpretation

The most important issue concerns the way the results are interpreted. Although the authors briefly acknowledge the cross-sectional nature of the data, several parts of the manuscript—particularly the Abstract, Discussion, and the simulation section—go beyond associational claims and imply causal effects. For example, the simulations suggesting that reducing unstructured spare time would lead to measurable reductions in offending rely on assumptions that cannot be justified with the current design.

This is problematic because alternative explanations are clearly plausible. Adolescents who are already involved in delinquency may be more likely to spend time in unstructured settings (selection effects), and unobserved factors such as family environment, neighborhood context, or personality traits could drive both time use and offending. While the inclusion of several control variables is a strength, it does not resolve these fundamental identification issues.

I would strongly encourage the authors to reframe the paper consistently in associational terms, reduce causal language throughout, and substantially qualify the interpretation of the simulation results. As it stands, the policy implications are too strong relative to the evidentiary basis.

On the measurement of unstructured spare time

A second major concern relates to how “unstructured spare time” is operationalized. The index combines a wide range of activities, some of which are conceptually quite different and may even overlap with deviant behavior itself. For example, including “skipping class” within the measure raises questions, as this is arguably already a form of rule-breaking rather than a neutral leisure activity. Similarly, the inclusion of heterogeneous online activities (from social media use to darknet browsing) blurs important distinctions.

This raises the possibility of conceptual and empirical overlap between the independent variable and the outcome, which could inflate the observed associations. At a minimum, the authors should provide a clearer justification for the inclusion of each component and discuss the implications of this measurement strategy.

On cross-national comparability

The cross-national scope is a major strength, but it also introduces important challenges that are not fully addressed. The analysis assumes that key constructs—such as unstructured time and self-reported offending—are comparable across countries. However, differences in cultural norms, reporting practices, and survey interpretation may affect both variables.

While the inclusion of country fixed effects helps control for average differences between countries, it does not address measurement equivalence. Without some discussion (or testing) of measurement invariance, it is difficult to assess whether the observed cross-national consistency reflects a substantive pattern or, at least in part, similarities in measurement artifacts.

I would therefore recommend that the authors discuss this issue of cross-national comparability, even if formal invariance testing is not feasible within the scope of the paper.

On modeling strategy

Relatedly, the modeling approach could be better justified. The data have a clear hierarchical structure (students nested within schools and countries), yet the analysis relies on clustered standard errors rather than multilevel models. While this is not necessarily incorrect, the choice should be explicitly justified, especially given the comparative focus of the study.

On additional methodological details

There are several smaller but still important points that would benefit from clarification:

• The use of pairwise t-tests with Benjamini–Hochberg correction is appropriate, but the implementation is not fully described (e.g., number of tests, whether correction is applied globally).

• The manuscript does not specify whether assumptions underlying the t-tests (particularly homogeneity of variances) were assessed, or whether Welch corrections were used.

• The variable capturing “openness in honestly reporting” is a potentially valuable addition, but its construction, validity, and relationship to other variables (such as morality or self-control) are not sufficiently explained.

These issues do not invalidate the results, but they reduce transparency and should be addressed.

In sum, this is a strong and potentially impactful paper that makes excellent use of a uniquely rich and large-scale cross-national dataset to address a highly relevant question in criminology. The empirical analyses are carefully conducted, and the consistency of the findings across countries is particularly compelling. The manuscript clearly demonstrates the promise of a time-use perspective for understanding adolescent offending and offers insights that are likely to be of broad interest to researchers and policymakers alike.

That said, the paper would benefit from some further refinement, particularly in clarifying aspects of measurement and modeling, adopting a slightly more cautious interpretation of the findings, and engaging more explicitly with issues of cross-national comparability. These are, in my view, constructive improvements that would strengthen an already valuable contribution.

**********

-->6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

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

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

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes: Diego J. Maldonado-Guzmán

**********

[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.

-->

Unstructured spare time as an international predictor of adolescent crime

PONE-D-26-07062R1

Dear Dr. Buil-Gil,

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,

Angelo Moretti, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS One

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments: