Peer Review History

Original SubmissionNovember 5, 2023
Decision Letter - Robbert Huijsman, Editor

PONE-D-23-36514Social Class, Generational Disparities, and Spatial Dimensions: How Does Exercise Impact the Social Mentality of the Chinese Population?PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Dong,

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 23 2024 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 rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.
  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.
  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Robbert Huijsman, PhD

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. Note from Emily Chenette, Editor in Chief of PLOS ONE, and Iain Hrynaszkiewicz, Director of Open Research Solutions at PLOS: Did you know that depositing data in a repository is associated with up to a 25% citation advantage (https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0230416)? If you’ve not already done so, consider depositing your raw data in a repository to ensure your work is read, appreciated and cited by the largest possible audience. You’ll also earn an Accessible Data icon on your published paper if you deposit your data in any participating repository (https://plos.org/open-science/open-data/#accessible-data).

3. We suggest you thoroughly copyedit your manuscript for language usage, spelling, and grammar. If you do not know anyone who can help you do this, you may wish to consider employing a professional scientific editing service.  

Whilst you may use any professional scientific editing service of your choice, PLOS has partnered with both American Journal Experts (AJE) and Editage to provide discounted services to PLOS authors. Both organizations have experience helping authors meet PLOS guidelines and can provide language editing, translation, manuscript formatting, and figure formatting to ensure your manuscript meets our submission guidelines. To take advantage of our partnership with AJE, visit the AJE website (http://learn.aje.com/plos/) for a 15% discount off AJE services. To take advantage of our partnership with Editage, visit the Editage website (www.editage.com) and enter referral code PLOSEDIT for a 15% discount off Editage services.  If the PLOS editorial team finds any language issues in text that either AJE or Editage has edited, the service provider will re-edit the text for free.

Upon resubmission, please provide the following: 

● The name of the colleague or the details of the professional service that edited your manuscript

● A copy of your manuscript showing your changes by either highlighting them or using track changes (uploaded as a *supporting information* file)

● A clean copy of the edited manuscript (uploaded as the new *manuscript* file)

4. 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. 

Additional Editor Comments:

Although there is only one reviewer's report, we agree with that review. To avoid any further delay, we decide on major revision and request you to follow up on the reviewer's comments and advises.

[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: No

**********

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: Journal: PLOS ONE

Article title: Social Class, Generational Disparities, and Spatial Dimensions: How Does Exercise Impact the Social Mentality of the Chinese Population?

Manuscript ID: PONE-D-23-36514

General Comments:

This article studies the influence of exercise, specifically through the lens of sports, on the social mentality of the Chinese population, encompassing aspects of social trust and social equity with the distinct mechanisms underlying differences in social class, generation disparities, and spatial dimensions. The authors used the data from the 2023 China General Social Survey, by selecting 20 variables and analyzing a sample of 6,746 individuals, with ordinary least squares (OLS) multiple linear regression models. The authors reached the conclusions that exercise has a positive influence on the social mentality of the Chinese population; a higher frequency of participation in sports correlates with a more advanced level of social mentality development; social class, generational disparities, and spatial dimensions demonstrate substantial impact, each exhibiting unique characteristics depending on the specific research question.

Overview:

The paper is good written and the empirical work does appear to be carefully and correctly done. The research question is very good and it does make a sufficient new contribution to the literature to be suitable for the PLOS ONE ONLY after MINOR revisons.

In fact, the literature on the social class, generational disparities, and spatial dimensions: how does exercise impact the social mentality of the Chinese population is quite new.

The contribution of the paper is the analysis of 2023 China General Social Survey, by selecting 20 variables and analyzing a sample of 6,746 individuals, with ordinary least squares (OLS) multiple linear regression models.

The paper is very interesting; and in my view, it needs to be MAJOR improved to reach the standard required for publication in this journal.

Specific Comments:

1. Title: quite long; try to reduce to one sentence

2. Abstract: good

3. Introduction: NOVELTY + results (better explanation);

4. Literature review: for the part of social class theory, the authors must introduce newer literature (and not only Chinese). This part is very political and subjective.

5. Methodology: why the authors use only these indicators into the model? Present some theoretical explanations for these indicators

6. Model: Why in model 3/4/5, the authors introduce the variable class, which is very subjective and not used into analysis after that?

7. Model: the authors must introduce some tests for multicollinearity and endogeneity.

8. Model: the authors must introduce a robustness part.

9. Conclusions: at least 1 page

General considerations: the idea of the article is somehow mediocre, but the construction of the article is sometimes very technical (statistical) and political. The authors MUST improve the methodology, explanations, and change the article accordingly. The authors MUST remove the political and subjective part of the article.

I ONLY recommend this article be published in PLOS ONE after MAJOR revisions (models and the social class theory).

**********

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.]

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

Dear Reviewers:

Greetings! Thank you very much for your valuable comments and suggestions on this article, we have benefited a lot.For each comment and suggestion, we have made careful deliberation and consideration, and carefully reviewed the relevant literature and information, and made corresponding modifications, and now the specific modifications are fed back as follows:

I、Responses to modifications

1. Title: quite long; try to reduce to one sentence

The author is very much in favor of your opinion. The title has been changed to "The impact of the exercise on the social mentality of the Chinese people". (line 1).

2. Abstract: good

No changes have been made here.

3. Introduction: NOVELTY + results (better explanation)

The author strongly agrees with your comments. Therefore, the introduction and literature review sections have been blended. The ideas presented in different studies are sorted out to provide arguments for this study. The argument is developed from the shift in people's need for sport from natural to social attributes, the positive and negative states presented by people's social mentality, and the impact of sport on social mentality. The effects and differences brought about by class, generation and space are also described. (lines 45-114).

4. Literature review: for the part of social class theory, the authors must introduce newer literature (and not only Chinese). This part is very political and subjective.

This has been integrated with the introductory section. Based on your comments, new literature has been introduced. The discussion of class is developed from different perspectives. Specifically: the relationship between people's trust in government and class; the dominance relationship between classes and social mentality; the impact of class-differentiated services of financial institutions on social mentality; and the relationship between the demand for sport and class mobility. (lines 76-92).

5. Methodology: why the authors use only these indicators into the model? Present some theoretical explanations for these indicators

The theoretical explanations for the selection of model indicators have been further expanded. See the indicator selection section in the research design. (lines 127-155).

6. Model: Why in model 3/4/5, the authors introduce the variable class, which is very subjective and not used into analysis after that?

The author is in deep agreement with you on this comment. The explanation of the model is enhanced with modifications. Located in the explanation and discussion of the statistical results, respectively. (lines 262-412, and lines 445-473).

7. Model: the authors must introduce some tests for multicollinearity and endogeneity.

We have gained a lot from this comment of yours. It motivates us to further standardize the use of statistical models and also further increase the reliability of the statistical results. Multicollinearity diagnostics added to the model setup section. Endogeneity tests were added to the statistical results section. Endogeneity tests were completed using the instrumental variables method. The original motion variable was replaced with an instrumental variable for whether or not the person participated in the motion. (lines 165-171, and lines 281-289).

8. Model: the authors must introduce a robustness part.

We have benefited greatly from this observation of yours. Accordingly, we used 2 methods for robustness testing, replacing the dependent variable and propensity score matching. It has been added in the statistical results section. The combination of social trust and social fairness as social mindfulness was used as a replacement for the dependent variable. Propensity score matching was performed to divide the experimental and control groups with the mean of the exercise variable, and the operation was completed using the control variable as the matching variable. (lines 290-297).

9. Conclusions: at least 1 page

Based on this comment of yours, we have expanded our conclusions. (lines 568-602).

II、Explanation of other changes

1、Some of the discussion in the text has been reorganized and corrected, and references and their serial numbers have been added and updated.

2、Reviewing the whole text, certain information details and language expressions in the text have been revised to make the presentation of views more accurate and concise.

III、 the revised parts of the article have been marked in red font, please review them again!

Finally, once again, I would like to express my heartfelt thanks to you for your valuable revisions and suggestions! I wish you happiness, well-being and success in your work!

Attachments
Attachment
Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx
Decision Letter - Robbert Huijsman, Editor

The impact of the exercise on the social mentality of the Chinese people

PONE-D-23-36514R1

Dear Dr. Dong,

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. If you have any questions relating to publication charges, 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,

Robbert Huijsman, PhD

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Formally Accepted
Acceptance Letter - Robbert Huijsman, Editor

PONE-D-23-36514R1

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Dong,

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

If revisions are needed, the production department will contact you directly to resolve them. If no revisions are needed, you will receive an email when the publication date has been set. At this time, we do not offer pre-publication proofs to authors during production of the accepted work. Please keep in mind that we are working through a large volume of accepted articles, so please give us a few weeks 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.

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

Professor Robbert Huijsman

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 .