Peer Review History
Original SubmissionDecember 15, 2020 |
---|
PONE-D-20-39389 Performing arts as a health resource? An umbrella review of the health impacts of music and dance participation PLOS ONE Dear Dr. McCrary, 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. As you can see, both reviewers are generally supportive of this work, however several concerns they raise must be concerned. I felt like this was somewhere between a major and minor revision, but in order to give you more time to complete the revisions, I've decided to issue this as a major revision (but in reality, I am hoping it won't take that long to address the reviewers' comments and resubmit). Please submit your revised manuscript by May 16 2021 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:
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: http://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, Emily S. Cross 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 2. In line with PLOS' guidelines on systematic reviews (https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-systematic-reviews-and-meta-analyses), please update your PRISMA flowchart to provide detailed reasons for the exclusion of manuscripts at each stage of analysis. *As per PLOS' guidelines regarding the reporting of Materials and Methods (https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-materials-and-methods), authors should ensure that "the Materials and Methods section should provide enough detail to allow suitably skilled investigators to fully replicate your study." Specifically, please consider moving some methodological details from the Supplemental information to the main body of the manuscript, so that your Methods section includes sufficient information to be understood independently of any other methods or measures described elsewhere in your submission. 3. 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. [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: N/A ********** 3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available? The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ********** 4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English? PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: 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: The current paper provides an indepth review of the health benefits of participation in and engagement with the performing arts. The results show that both music, especially drumming, and expression and exercise-based modes of dance promote health, but specific conclusions are as yet limited. I enjoyed reading the paper and the research questions are important and timely, with the potential to contribute to the field. However, I believe that a few things can be further clarified, and a few concerns need to be addressed before the paper goes forward for publication. I outline both minor and major comments below. For convenience, I outline these chronologically. 1. Page 3, line 63. Please clarify in the introduction what you mean by the ‘mode’ of art. 2. I think it would be helpful in the introduction to clarify front and center that there are a number of performing arts and the authors chose to focus on music and dance, and provide more justification for this choice. 3. Additionally, it would be beneficial for the reader if the authors provide their apriori hypotheses in the introduction itself. What were your predictions and why? 4. Page 4, line 97: “Following informal literature searches, the authors made an a priori decision that an integrated, three component umbrella review would most effectively address study aims” – can you clarify more precisely in the introduction what exactly your study aims were and why you focused on only these three components. Aren’t there other components that can also answer your study aims? I think a more comprehensive justification would be helpful. 5. Page 5, line 117: Please clarify what you mean by an ‘exertive aim.’ Was the exclusion criteria such that studies were excluded if target heart rate or perceived exertion were dependent variables? Can you please justify more why you chose to exclude these studies but include a separate systematic review on heart rate responses? To clarify, I understand why the authors did this but I think the readers would benefit from a clearer justification. 6. Page 6, line 143: it is unclear from the phrasing whether only those systematic reviews where meta-analyses were conducted were included in the current review or whether all systematic reviews were included? 7. Page 6, line 147: please clarify what you mean by narrative synthesis. 8. Page 7, line 54: “For each outcome, the effect of performing arts participation was determined to be ‘positive’, ‘negative’, ‘no effect’, or ‘unclear’” Please clarify in more detail how each of these outcomes were determined. 9. Page 7, line 167: It is not clear why one outcome from one study which was included in multiple meta-analyses was considered twice. Please clarify this. 10. Page 7, line 172: “similar domains associated with the health benefits of physical activity” – why were similar domains chosen? Was the goal of the study to find similar outcomes to any other physical activity including dance and music, or was it to find health outcomes that were specific to dance and music above and beyond health outcomes of just any physical activity? I think this is a concern throughout the paper where the aim is slightly unclear in terms of identifying outcomes that are specific to expressive activity and that are outcomes of any exercise. 11. Page 10, Figure 1: Figure 1 is excellent and a graphical representation of your umbrella review. It would be more helpful to the reader either in text or in the caption to add the specific reason why studies were excluded (Eg. Xx studies excluded because no heart rate data, xx studies excluded because included only in qualitative data etc). 12. Page 15, table 2: this is an excellent, extensive list of studies! Were the studies also grouped by style/instrument of dance or music in order to find whether combined together these studies yielded consistent (intensity) of health outcomes? Were the studies also grouped by participation setting (lab/class/performance etc) to see if there were participation setting specific effects? 13. Page 16 (for some reason line numbers disappear after table 2 � ): Did you have age-specific predictions? 14. Page 22, first paragraph: why is the quality of existing studies low? Is this because of low sample sizes? Or missing control groups? More broadly, I think the discussion needs to address the issue of control groups. What control groups were used in primary studies to dissociate the effects of music and/or dance from the effects of other forms of activity? 15. Page 22, first paragraph: “validated, sensitive instruments for quantifying performing arts participation” – please clarify what you mean by validated and sensitive instruments, and highlight directs for future research more broadly in the discussion that follow on from your findings. Reviewer #2: Summary This is a well-written and clear review of an area lacking important research. This review thoroughly collates the present evidence on the health impacts of music and dance participation and provides a solid foundation for future research. General points In particular it is commendable that music and dance are both covered in this review. I think it would be nice to acknowledge in the introduction their common evolutionary origins. The review supports the idea that group dancing and musicking fulfil similar psychological and societal functions https://www.pnas.org/content/112/29/8987.short https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rsbl.2015.0767 https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0180101 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6092630/ Specific points 1) Page, 3, first paragraph, a recent systematic review on dance interventions for mental health was published by Millman et al., 2020 here https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/cpp.2490 2) Page 20, line 1/2 – “This umbrella review…” and “…evidence demonstrating that performing arts participation is, broadly, a health promoting activity…” 3) Page 21 line 1 – “…greater amounts of high quality studies of specific…” 4) Page 23, line 18 – “Performing arts participation is a broadly healthy promoting activity, with…” or could do the same as what I suggested for Page 20 “… is, broadly, a health promoting…” ********** 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: 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. |
Revision 1 |
Performing arts as a health resource? An umbrella review of the health impacts of music and dance participation PONE-D-20-39389R1 Dear Dr. McCrary, 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 for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org. 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, Emily S. Cross Academic Editor PLOS ONE Reviewers' comments: Reviewer's Responses to Questions Comments to the Author 1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation. Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed ********** 2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions? The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented. Reviewer #1: Yes ********** 3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: Yes ********** 4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available? The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified. Reviewer #1: Yes ********** 5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English? PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here. Reviewer #1: Yes ********** 6. Review Comments to the Author Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters) Reviewer #1: All comments have been satisfactorily addressed, and I wish the authors good luck for their publication! ********** 7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files. If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public. Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy. Reviewer #1: Yes: Kohinoor M. Darda |
Formally Accepted |
PONE-D-20-39389R1 Performing arts as a health resource? An umbrella review of the health impacts of music and dance participation Dear Dr. McCrary: I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department. 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. If we can help with anything else, please email us at plosone@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 Professor Emily S. Cross Academic Editor PLOS ONE |
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 .