arg_1
stringlengths 4
5.08k
| round_1
float64 2
8
⌀ | ann_1
float64 1
2
⌀ | arg_2
stringlengths 8
2.19k
| round_2
float64 1
7
⌀ | ann_2
float64 1
2
⌀ | annotation_name
stringclasses 131
values | is_attacks
int64 0
1
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
The methodology is sound and the manuscript is well-written.
| null | null |
P. 2, L. 18 – A reference for the determination that a dosage of antidepressants was “high” should be provided.
| 1 | 2 |
brainsci6010008_perova
| 0 |
The time post-exercise before scanning was provided, but not the time post-quiet rest.
| null | null |
P. 3, L. 15 – The time post-exercise before scanning was provided, but not the time post-quiet rest.
| 1 | 2 |
brainsci6010008_perova
| 0 |
The discussion interprets the results as supporting evidence of exercise-induced hypoalgesia (EIH) in the patients with FM.
| null | null |
P. 6, L. 5 – “Elevations” should be revised to “higher” so that readers do not erroneously believe that a pre-scan application of heat stimuli was administered.
| 1 | 2 |
brainsci6010008_perova
| 0 |
A reference for the determination that a dosage of antidepressants was “high” should be provided.
| null | null |
P. 6, L. 12 - I am uncertain why the authors only report the effect sizes of group differences for the first run.s
| 1 | 2 |
brainsci6010008_perova
| 0 |
This manuscript describes a cohort randomized crossover design comparing cutaneous heat pain ratings and brain activity during heat stimuli after conditions of quiet rest and cycling in patients with a physician-confirmed diagnosis of Fibromyalgia (FM) and age and sex matched controls.
| null | null |
However, in the latter case the authors need to address the issue of multiple correlations. Changes in pain sensitivity after exercise versus rest were significantly correlated with changes in activity in DLPFC (exercise vs. rest).
| 1 | 2 |
brainsci6010008_perova
| 0 |
We have addressed each concern below and made changes in the manuscript accordingly.
| null | null |
However, in the latter case the authors need to address the issue of multiple correlations. Changes in pain sensitivity after exercise versus rest were significantly correlated with changes in activity in DLPFC (exercise vs. rest).
| 1 | 2 |
brainsci6010008_perova
| 0 |
We feel that the manuscript has been significantly improved as a result of the suggested revisions.
| null | null |
Nine individuals in each group were included in neuroimaging analyses, this should be indicated in the abstract.
| 1 | 2 |
brainsci6010008_perova
| 0 |
This study has compared acute effects of exercise and inactivity in fibromyalgia (FM) and pain-free controls on changes in pain and cerebral activity in response to heat.
| null | null |
In table 3 the subheading "Peak X, Y, X" needs correction.
| 1 | 2 |
brainsci6010008_perova
| 0 |
Following exercise in FM patients, activity was transiently increased in anterior insula and dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (DLPFC) while activity was transienly decreased following rest.
| null | null |
Consider discussing the results in relation to previous studies on exercise and neuroimaging
| 1 | 2 |
brainsci6010008_perova
| 0 |
Our responses to the reviewer’s specific concerns follow each point and are indented and in red font.
| null | null |
The results are clearly reported and adequately discussed. The findings are novel and may be compared to previous studies of exercise and neuroimaging in fibromyalgia.
| 1 | 2 |
brainsci6010008_perova
| 0 |
Are there better references to substantiate this point?
| null | null |
In table 1, the "-" is used to signify absent values but that should be footnoted in the table precisely what this signifies.
| 1 | 2 |
brainsci6010009_makarova
| 0 |
On page 11 line 4 you say levels of Hg in the environment and in humans are increasing but your reference #26 doesn't speak to that point.
| null | null |
In the exposed and control groups were there other related diseases such as Autism? If so, how many and what would happen to the analysis if you removed them?
| 1 | 2 |
brainsci6010009_makarova
| 0 |
The writing is clear, the analysis is sound, and the presentation is excellent with a few exceptions.
| null | null |
On page 3 line 22, they describe children with the diagnosis before the exposure. How many were there that fit in this category?
| 1 | 2 |
brainsci6010009_makarova
| 0 |
How many were there that fit in this category?
| null | null |
On page 11 line 4 you say levels of Hg in the environment and in humans are increasing but your reference #26 doesn't speak to that point. Are there better references to substantiate this point?
| 1 | 2 |
brainsci6010009_makarova
| 0 |
Can the authors address this point: is this database publicly available?
| null | null |
Can the authors address this point: is this database publicly available?
| 1 | 2 |
brainsci6010009_makarova
| 0 |
Are there better references to substantiate this point?
| null | null |
The results are controversial. However, the findings may be of great interest for the readers of the journal. The paper is of high quality. I recommend the manuscript published. It can be published as it is.
| 1 | 2 |
brainsci6010009_makarova
| 0 |
On page 3 line 22, they describe children with the diagnosis before the exposure.
| null | null |
1. In table 1, the "-" is used to signify absent values but that should be footnoted in the table precisely what this signifies.
| 1 | 2 |
brainsci6010009_perova
| 0 |
The Odds ratios presented are dose dependent and, above 37.5 uG of Hg, they reach over 4.5 which are tremendous associations between an exposure and a disease outcome.
| null | null |
2. In the exposed and control groups were there other related diseases such as Autism? If so, how many and what would happen to the analysis if you removed them?
| 1 | 2 |
brainsci6010009_perova
| 0 |
These results are relevant and important as thimerosal is still included in global vaccines although they have largely been removed from childhood vaccine in the United States.
| null | null |
3. On page 3 line 22, they describe children with the diagnosis before the exposure. How many were there that fit in this category?
| 1 | 2 |
brainsci6010009_perova
| 0 |
The writing is clear, the analysis is sound, and the presentation is excellent with a few exceptions.
| null | null |
On page 11 line 4 you say levels of Hg in the environment and in humans are increasing but your reference #26 doesn't speak to that point. Are there better references to substantiate this point?
| 1 | 2 |
brainsci6010009_perova
| 0 |
If so, how many and what would happen to the analysis if you removed them?
| null | null |
5. Can the authors address this point: is this database publicly available?
| 1 | 2 |
brainsci6010009_perova
| 0 |
In table 1, the "-" is used to signify absent values but that should be footnoted in the table precisely what this signifies.
| null | null |
This is an important study that deserves to be published. The results are controversial. However, the findings may be of great interest for the readers of the journal. The paper is of high quality. I recommend the manuscript published. It can be published as it is.
| 1 | 2 |
brainsci6010009_perova
| 0 |
Round 1: Author Response to Reviewer 2 In my view, this manuscript will make a nice contribution to the literature.
| null | null |
This is a well-written paper with a large sample of girls that replicates and extends important research on relational aggression. The focus on the functions (reactive and proactive) of relational aggression has significant implications for intervention with adolescent girls. I commend the authors for this timely and crucial study on factors that influence the development of aggression and antisocial behavior in girls, which is typically an understudied topic.
| 1 | 2 |
bs5040518_makarova
| 0 |
Second, the manuscript should be carefully edited as there are a fair number of grammatical and typographical errors, including lack of subject-verb agreement in places (e.g., using “were” and “was” in the same sentence, both referring to the same measure - CU traits), omitted words, and so forth.
| null | null |
First, it is recommended that the authors provide more information about the selection of the cluster solution. That is, no information is available in the present manuscript about alternative cluster solutions from the analysis, for example, the extent to which BIC and the silhouette coefficient differed for other solutions and so forth. It would help the reader to have some information available as a way of arguing more strongly that the accepted solution (which does make theoretical and empirical sense) is the strongest grouping.
| 1 | 2 |
bs5040518_makarova
| 0 |
That is, no information is available in the present manuscript about alternative cluster solutions from the analysis, for example, the extent to which BIC and the silhouette coefficient differed for other solutions and so forth.
| null | null |
Second, the manuscript should be carefully edited as there are a fair number of grammatical and typographical errors, including lack of subject-verb agreement in places (e.g., using “were” and “was” in the same sentence, both referring to the same measure - CU traits), omitted words, and so forth.
| 1 | 2 |
bs5040518_makarova
| 0 |
Second, the authors do not mention why they implicitly selected an additive model (i.e., each factor makes a unique and independent contribution) instead of, for example, an interactional model.
| null | null |
First, some factors (i.e., CU traits) may be predictors whereas others (i.e., delinquency) may be correlates or consequences of relational aggression. If the authors are really interested in the processes that could feed into reactive or proactive relational aggression in females, they should have been more attentive to this issue.
| 1 | 2 |
bs5040518_makarova
| 0 |
These findings are in contrast to earlier work, which assumed that proactive and reactive aggression represented distinct typologies.
| null | null |
Second, the authors do not mention why they implicitly selected an additive model (i.e., each factor makes a unique and independent contribution) instead of, for example, an interactional model (i.e., peer and parent factors potentiate the link between individual factors and subtypes of relational aggression).
| 1 | 2 |
bs5040518_makarova
| 0 |
Below are a few comments that could hopefully help improve a solid piece of work.
| null | null |
Given the severe limitations of their cross-sectional design, the authors need to revise their comments with respect to directionality and their use of causality terms throughout the manuscript.
| 1 | 2 |
bs5040518_makarova
| 0 |
Round 1: and Author Response The goal of this study was to distinguish subgroups of relationally aggressive females (i.e., reactively aggressive-only subgroup, reactively-and-proactively aggressive-combined subgroup, non-aggressive subgroup), on the basis of nine factors reflecting individual characteristics, peer-related variables and R3 parental control.
| null | null |
Some measures such as self-reports of peers’ delinquency are also flawed because of a possible projection bias.
| 1 | 2 |
bs5040518_makarova
| 0 |
Given the severe limitations of their cross-sectional design, the authors need to revise their comments with respect to directionality and their use of causality terms throughout the manuscript.
| null | null |
A better strategy would have been to predict each type of aggression while controlling its overlap with the other type (i.e., include reactive aggression when predicting proactive aggression and vice-versa).
| 1 | 2 |
bs5040518_makarova
| 0 |
Acknowledging this problem in the limitations does not solve it.
| null | null |
Some findings are difficult to reconcile with the current literature; in addition, they are internally inconsistent. For example, how to explain that the combined group is not more delinquent than the reactively aggressive group although they report more CU traits and more delinquent peers, two known factors in regard to delinquent behaviors?
| 1 | 2 |
bs5040518_makarova
| 0 |
Acknowledging this problem in the limitations does not solve it.
| null | null |
There are a number of grammatical and lexical problems throughout the manuscript that need to be taken care of.
| 1 | 2 |
bs5040518_makarova
| 0 |
Overall, this is a nice paper that looks to make a contribution.
| null | null |
There are enough variables that I hard a hard time following the analyses. A tighter focus in the intro and matching of analyses to hypotheses may help here.
| 1 | 2 |
bs5040518_makarova
| 0 |
This work, as with other recent work, makes clear that the most severely aggressive youth tend to engage in high R2 levels of both proactive and reactive aggression and are otherwise also generally more distressed and dysregulated, as compared with youth who are more moderately aggressive and tend to engage in reactive aggression only, and youth who have low levels of aggression.
| null | null |
This is a well-written paper with a large sample of girls that replicates and extends important research on relational aggression. The focus on the functions (reactive and proactive) of relational aggression has significant implications for intervention with adolescent girls. I commend the authors for this timely and crucial study on factors that influence the development of aggression and antisocial behavior in girls, which is typically an understudied topic.
| 1 | 2 |
bs5040518_perova
| 0 |
Below are a few comments that could hopefully help improve a solid piece of work.
| null | null |
First, it is recommended that the authors provide more information about the selection of the cluster solution. That is, no information is available in the present manuscript about alternative cluster solutions from the analysis, for example, the extent to which BIC and the silhouette coefficient differed for other solutions and so forth. It would help the reader to have some information available as a way of arguing more strongly that the accepted solution (which does make theoretical and empirical sense) is the strongest grouping.
| 1 | 2 |
bs5040518_perova
| 0 |
Despite the use of a relatively large sample and of sound measures, this study falls short of making an important contribution to the current literature for several reasons.
| null | null |
Second, the manuscript should be carefully edited as there are a fair number of grammatical and typographical errors, including lack of subject-verb agreement in places (e.g., using “were” and “was” in the same sentence, both referring to the same measure - CU traits), omitted words, and so forth.
| 1 | 2 |
bs5040518_perova
| 0 |
There are two areas to address to strengthen the paper a bit more.
| null | null |
Although the rationale for selecting each of the 9 factors that might be differentially related to reactive or proactive relational aggression is convincing, the overall picture is incomplete on at least two accounts. First, some factors (i.e., CU traits) may be predictors whereas others (i.e., delinquency) may be correlates or consequences of relational aggression. If the authors are really interested in the processes that could feed into reactive or proactive relational aggression in females, they should have been more attentive to this issue. Second, the authors do not mention why they implicitly selected an additive model (i.e., each factor makes a unique and independent contribution) instead of, for example, an interactional model (i.e., peer and parent factors potentiate the link between individual factors and subtypes of relational aggression).
| 1 | 2 |
bs5040518_perova
| 0 |
There are a number of grammatical and lexical problems throughout the manuscript that need to be taken care of.
| null | null |
Although the rationale for selecting each of the 9 factors that might be differentially related to reactive or proactive relational aggression is convincing, the overall picture is incomplete on at least two accounts. First, some factors (i.e., CU traits) may be predictors whereas others (i.e., delinquency) may be correlates or consequences of relational aggression. If the authors are really interested in the processes that could feed into reactive or proactive relational aggression in females, they should have been more attentive to this issue. Second, the authors do not mention why they implicitly selected an additive model (i.e., each factor makes a unique and independent contribution) instead of, for example, an interactional model (i.e., peer and parent factors potentiate the link between individual factors and subtypes of relational aggression).
| 1 | 2 |
bs5040518_perova
| 0 |
The study is strengthened by the person-centered approach to data analysis, by the large sample, by focusing on girls who have been much less studied than boys, and by the clear rationale for the study.
| null | null |
The use of a cross-sectional design is a major limitation, because it cannot help determine the directionality of the links between the nine factors and subtypes of relational aggression, left alone causality. This bears directly on the issue of predictors vs. correlates vs. consequences of subtypes of relational aggression. Given the severe limitations of their cross-sectional design, the authors need to revise their comments with respect to directionality and their use of causality terms throughout the manuscript.
| 1 | 2 |
bs5040518_perova
| 0 |
This work, as with other recent work, makes clear that the most severely aggressive youth tend to engage in high R2 levels of both proactive and reactive aggression and are otherwise also generally more distressed and dysregulated, as compared with youth who are more moderately aggressive and tend to engage in reactive aggression only, and youth who have low levels of aggression.
| null | null |
All the measures are self-reported. This artificially inflates the link between the study variables. Acknowledging this problem in the limitations does not solve it. Some measures such as self-reports of peers’ delinquency are also flawed because of a possible projection bias.
| 1 | 2 |
bs5040518_perova
| 0 |
For example, how to explain that the combined group is not more delinquent than the reactively aggressive group although they report more CU traits and more delinquent peers, two known factors in regard to delinquent behaviors?
| null | null |
Creating groups based on a cluster analysis may have created unnecessary problems. In particular, and contrary to what the authors seem to believe, it is not possible to know whether differences between the two aggressive groups reflect differences in levels of relational aggression or in type of relational aggression (reactive only vs. combined), given that the combined group is obviously much more aggressive than the reactive-only group. A better strategy would have been to predict each type of aggression while controlling its overlap with the other type (i.e., include reactive aggression when predicting proactive aggression and vice-versa).
| 1 | 2 |
bs5040518_perova
| 0 |
Some measures such as self-reports of peers’ delinquency are also flawed because of a possible projection bias.
| null | null |
Some findings are difficult to reconcile with the current literature; in addition, they are internally inconsistent. For example, how to explain that the combined group is not more delinquent than the reactively aggressive group although they report more CU traits and more delinquent peers, two known factors in regard to delinquent behaviors?
| 1 | 2 |
bs5040518_perova
| 0 |
That is, no information is available in the present manuscript about alternative cluster solutions from the analysis, for example, the extent to which BIC and the silhouette coefficient differed for other solutions and so forth.
| null | null |
There are a number of grammatical and lexical problems throughout the manuscript that need to be taken care of.
| 1 | 2 |
bs5040518_perova
| 0 |
Round 1: and Author Response This manuscript reports on person-centered analysis of adolescent girls finding that they are distinguished by types of aggression, callous-unemotional traits, and by interpersonal relationships with peers and parents.
| null | null |
There are enough variables that I hard a hard time following the analyses. A tighter focus in the intro and matching of analyses to hypotheses may help here.
| 1 | 2 |
bs5040518_perova
| 0 |
It would help the reader to have some information available as a way of arguing more strongly that the accepted solution (which does make theoretical and empirical sense) is the strongest grouping.
| null | null |
As it is, this reviewer had difficulty following the variables as predictors/outcomes and the hypotheses that are driving the paper 2.
| 1 | 2 |
bs5040518_perova
| 0 |
That seems to be the model implied by the analyses, but it is never explicitly specified.
| null | null |
With better theoretical framing and a more limited set of analyses, the value of the study results should be more clear.
| 1 | 2 |
bs6010004_makarova
| 0 |
**Thank you catching the typographical error (80% attracted to the same sex) - this should have read "other sex".
| null | null |
Also, a more thorough description of the measurement of the construct and the validity of the measurement could be described in that section.
| 1 | 2 |
bs6010004_makarova
| 0 |
Fifth, one set of results seems quite contradictory: sense of entitlement to sexual self-pleasure decreased, on average, from Time 1 to Time 2, but sense of entitlement to sexual self-pleasure was positively correlated with age.
| null | null |
On p. 4 the first sentence of second full paragraph, “Regarding sexual subjectivity and its link to greater sexual exploration and experience, one cross-sectional with a sample of females” is missing the word “study.” **
| 1 | 2 |
bs6010004_makarova
| 0 |
Participants completed two waves of data collection approximately 1-year apart.
| null | null |
The authors could provide more theoretical explanation of why there might be gender differences in sexual subjectivity.
| 1 | 2 |
bs6010004_makarova
| 0 |
On p. 4 the first sentence of second full paragraph, “Regarding sexual subjectivity and its link to greater sexual exploration and experience, one cross-sectional with a sample of females” is missing the word “study.” The authors could provide more theoretical explanation of why there might be gender differences in sexual subjectivity.
| null | null |
The authors rely too much on headings to transition between ideas. The paper would flow more smoothly if some transition sentences were included.
| 1 | 2 |
bs6010004_makarova
| 0 |
What were participants told about the purpose of the study?
| null | null |
More specific hypotheses could be proposed.
| 1 | 2 |
bs6010004_makarova
| 0 |
List-wise deletion can lead to serious bias in results.
| null | null |
The section where research questions are described is worded in an awkward way.
| 1 | 2 |
bs6010004_makarova
| 0 |
There is an increase in Type I error with the multiple t-tests conducted thatshould be addressed.
| null | null |
The reporting of group differences in the participants section might be better placed in the results section after the measures are described.
| 1 | 2 |
bs6010004_makarova
| 0 |
Third, although longitudinal data can be a quite powerful tool for understanding change and development, the current analyses squander some of that power.
| null | null |
The combining of the male and female versions of the sexual subjectivity inventories should be described in more detail, and the validity of creating the subscales should be explained. Perhaps factor analysis could be used to determine appropriate subscales?
| 1 | 2 |
bs6010004_makarova
| 0 |
From the relatively high percentage of non-heterosexual participants, there seems to be some selection bias.
| null | null |
What were participants told about the purpose of the study?
| 1 | 2 |
bs6010004_makarova
| 0 |
Overall, 91% were white/Caucasian, 3% were Asian, 1 was Aboriginal/Pacific Islander, and the remaining participants indicated an "Other" sociocultural background.
| null | null |
Similarly, there are many correlation tests performed which increases Type I error that needs to be addressed.
| 1 | 2 |
bs6010004_makarova
| 0 |
The first paragraph of the Participants section now reads: The participants were 295 adolescent and young adult men (n = 112) and women (n = 183) aged between 17 to 25 years (M = 19.5 years, SD = 1.9).
| null | null |
Predictions about how the specific subscales of the inventory might relate to age and experience might be provided to make the results more meaningful (see the comment about theory relating to analyses discussed above).
| 1 | 2 |
bs6010004_makarova
| 0 |
Second, potential participants were "approached at a university campus" during orientation week.
| null | null |
Analyses should be re-done using a more sophisticated method for handling missing data, such as multiple imputation or full-information maximum likelihood (Shafer & Graham, 2002, Psychological Methods).
| 1 | 2 |
bs6010004_makarova
| 0 |
Fifth, one set of results seems quite contradictory: sense of entitlement to sexual self-pleasure decreased, on average, from Time 1 to Time 2, but sense of entitlement to sexual self-pleasure was positively correlated with age.
| null | null |
At the very least, the Discussion should consider how generalizable these results are.
| 1 | 2 |
bs6010004_makarova
| 0 |
The paper would flow more smoothly if some transition sentences were included.
| null | null |
More generally, I think the putative timescale of effects of behavior on sexual subjectivity needs more theoretical elaboration. Are behaviors in early adolescence (before age 16), for example, expected to continue to influence the trajectory of sexual subjectivity regardless of later sexual behavior?
| 1 | 2 |
bs6010004_makarova
| 0 |
There was no evidence that any association differed between young men and young women.
| null | null |
The shift to a latent factor approach would have the added benefit of allowing the authors to use FIML to account for missing data at T2, and they could thus use their entire sample.
| 1 | 2 |
bs6010004_makarova
| 0 |
Finally, on a selfish note, I wrote an extensive review piece on this topic (Harden, 2014, "A Sex-Positive Framework for Reseach on Adolescent Sexuality" in Perspectives on Psychological Science), and
| null | null |
This contradiction underscores my concern about attrition (point #1); I wonder if the seeming decrease from Time 1 to Time 2 is an artifact of attrition.
| 1 | 2 |
bs6010004_makarova
| 0 |
**We also expanded the first paragraph of the Limitations to say: Although this study provided insight into how aspects of sexual subjectivity differed over one year in young men and women and uncovered associations of age and sexual behavior with sexual subjectivity, there were two limitations worthy of note.
| null | null |
I would, of course, be happy if the authors included a reference to my paper in their Introduction or Discussion.
| 1 | 2 |
bs6010004_makarova
| 0 |
Moreover, the reverse paths -- from sexual subjectivity to future behavior -- are also not tested in this paper.
| null | null |
my main concern with the study is that there were too many analyses presented to interpret in a meaningful way. The authors should revise the paper providing more theoretical background and accompanying analyses. With better theoretical framing and a more limited set of analyses, the value of the study results should be more clear.
| 1 | 2 |
bs6010004_perova
| 0 |
First, the attrition between Time 1 and Time 2 was substantial (40% of participants), and this is handled using list-wise deletion.
| null | null |
I think it would be preferable to describe the measurement of sexual subjectivity shortly after it is defined on p. 3. Also, a more thorough description of the measurement of the construct and the validity of the measurement could be described in that section.
| 1 | 2 |
bs6010004_perova
| 0 |
A sense of entitlement to sexual partner pleasure increased significantly over the year of the study, whereas, on average, there was no change in self-efficacy over time.
| null | null |
On p. 4 the first sentence of second full paragraph, “Regarding sexual subjectivity and its link to greater sexual exploration and experience, one cross-sectional with a sample of females” is missing the word “study.” **
| 1 | 2 |
bs6010004_perova
| 0 |
Author Response Please specify how many students were approached to participate in the study and therefore specify the response rate.
| null | null |
The authors could provide more theoretical explanation of why there might be gender differences in sexual subjectivity.
| 1 | 2 |
bs6010004_perova
| 0 |
There was no evidence that any association differed between young men and young women.
| null | null |
The authors rely too much on headings to transition between ideas. The paper would flow more smoothly if some transition sentences were included.
| 1 | 2 |
bs6010004_perova
| 0 |
The combining of the male and female versions of the sexual subjectivity inventories should be described in more detail, and the validity of creating the subscales should be explained.
| null | null |
More specific hypotheses could be proposed. The section where research questions are described is worded in an awkward way.
| 1 | 2 |
bs6010004_perova
| 0 |
Therefore, the results of the current study may have some limited generalizability.
| null | null |
The reporting of group differences in the participants section might be better placed in the results section after the measures are described.
| 1 | 2 |
bs6010004_perova
| 0 |
Predictions about how the specific subscales of the inventory might relate to age and experience might be provided to make the results more meaningful (see the comment about theory relating to analyses discussed above).
| null | null |
The combining of the male and female versions of the sexual subjectivity inventories should be described in more detail, and the validity of creating the subscales should be explained. Perhaps factor analysis could be used to determine appropriate subscales?
| 1 | 2 |
bs6010004_perova
| 0 |
The normative development of sexual health is an important and understudied topic, and the Introduction to this paper provides a good overview of the theoretical work in this area.
| null | null |
What were participants told about the purpose of the study?
| 1 | 2 |
bs6010004_perova
| 0 |
There might be some interesting data collected in the present study.
| null | null |
There is an increase in Type I error with the multiple t-tests conducted thatshould be addressed. Similarly, there are many correlation tests performed which increases Type I error that needs to be addressed.
| 1 | 2 |
bs6010004_perova
| 0 |
Some more specific suggestions are provided below.
| null | null |
Predictions about how the specific subscales of the inventory might relate to age and experience might be provided to make the results more meaningful (see the comment about theory relating to analyses discussed above).
| 1 | 2 |
bs6010004_perova
| 0 |
How do the authors make sense of these result, as participants are one year older at Time 2?
| null | null |
First, the attrition between Time 1 and Time 2 was substantial (40% of participants), and this is handled using list-wise deletion. That is, any one who did not complete both assessments was not included in the analyses. List-wise deletion can lead to serious bias in results. Analyses should be re-done using a more sophisticated method for handling missing data, such as multiple imputation or full-information maximum likelihood (Shafer & Graham, 2002, Psychological Methods).
| 1 | 2 |
bs6010004_perova
| 0 |
**We did not keep an exact count of the number of students approached about the study, but we estimate that we approached about 375 students.
| null | null |
Second, potential participants were "approached at a university campus" during orientation week. What percentage of people who were approached agreed to participate? How broadly representative of the university population (or the university-age population) is the sample? From the relatively high percentage of non-heterosexual participants, there seems to be some selection bias. At the very least, the Discussion should consider how generalizable these results are.
| 1 | 2 |
bs6010004_perova
| 0 |
Statistics show that the majority of Australian year 10-12 students (approximately 15-17 years) have engaged in some form of sexual behavior [12].
| null | null |
Third, although longitudinal data can be a quite powerful tool for understanding change and development, the current analyses squander some of that power. The regression results presented in Table 2 test whether sexual behaviors that participants already experienced by Time 1 predicted facets of sexual subjectivity at Time 2, controlling for sexual subjectivity at Time 1. Why would behavior that has already happened contribute to a re-ordering of individuals over the course of the next year? It seems that a more interesting and direct test of the longitudinal effects of sexual behavior on sexual subjectivity would test whether new sexual behaviors (that is, sexual behaviors experienced between Time 1 and Time 2) predict change in sexual subjectivity from Time 1 to Time 2. Moreover, the reverse paths -- from sexual subjectivity to future behavior -- are also not tested in this paper. More generally, I think the putative timescale of effects of behavior on sexual subjectivity needs more theoretical elaboration. Are behaviors in early adolescence (before age 16), for example, expected to continue to influence the trajectory of sexual subjectivity regardless of later sexual behavior? That seems to be the model implied by the analyses, but it is never explicitly specified.
| 1 | 2 |
bs6010004_perova
| 0 |
Most lived with their parents (61%) and reported being only attracted to the other sex (80%).
| null | null |
Fourth, each analysis is conducted for each subscale separately, but (with the exception of sexual body-esteem) the scales are consistently (if moderately) intercorrelated. I think it would be informative to test whether associations with age or sexual experience group are operating through a general underlying factor of sexual subjectivity versus are unique to specific facets. The shift to a latent factor approach would have the added benefit of allowing the authors to use FIML to account for missing data at T2, and they could thus use their entire sample.
| 1 | 2 |
bs6010004_perova
| 0 |
**Thank you catching the typographical error (80% attracted to the same sex) - this should have read "other sex".
| null | null |
Fifth, one set of results seems quite contradictory: sense of entitlement to sexual self-pleasure decreased, on average, from Time 1 to Time 2, but sense of entitlement to sexual self-pleasure was positively correlated with age. How do the authors make sense of these result, as participants are one year older at Time 2? This contradiction underscores my concern about attrition (point #1); I wonder if the seeming decrease from Time 1 to Time 2 is an artifact of attrition.
| 1 | 2 |
bs6010004_perova
| 0 |
I have four recommendations for improving the paper.
| null | null |
Finally, on a selfish note, I wrote an extensive review piece on this topic (Harden, 2014, "A Sex-Positive Framework for Reseach on Adolescent Sexuality" in Perspectives on Psychological Science), and I would, of course, be happy if the authors included a reference to my paper in their Introduction or Discussion.
| 1 | 2 |
bs6010004_perova
| 0 |
Author Response Response to Reviewer 1 Comments I would like to thank the authors for taking all my comments into full consideration.
| null | null |
The definition of biophilia is described as an “inherent love” toward nature. While this is somewhat accurate, it might be more appropriate to elucidate this as an “inherent affinity”.
| 1 | 2 |
buildings12040417_makarova
| 0 |
Biophilic design is known to elicit mental and physical health benefits, as stated by the authors on page 1, lines 29-32.
| null | null |
P1, L39-41: Please provide references to these frameworks. Reading further to page 3, I believe these are the 24 biophilic design attributes [ref. 25,39], and the 14 patterns of biophilic design [ref.40]. Further references around the biophilic concept could also be provided, e.g.: Bjørn et al., 2009. Biophilia: Does Visual Contact with Nature Impact on Health and Well-Being? International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. Ulrich, 1993. Biophilia, biophobia, and natural landscapes. Ko et al., 2020. A window view quality assessment framework. LEUKOS. The latter reference reviewed many international standards that advocate nature and biophilic design for view and building spaces, with examples given to the Singapore context. This somewhat overlaps with my next comment.
| 1 | 2 |
buildings12040417_makarova
| 0 |
3, Please bring strong relevance to the scope of journal "Buildings" by investigating most recent literature.
| null | null |
P2, 47-53: Although in the past there were few guidelines, nowadays, there may be more standards that focus on nature integration within the built environment. WELL v2 has several features for Nature and Mind, and Biophilia – Parts I and II, with quantitative assessment methods provided. Similarly, the Green Mark system uses the green plot ratio, assigning credits to greenery provision to enhance biodiversity and visual relief. If the authors agree with this, perhaps this could be revised here to reflect this. Other standards likely incorporate biophilic elements in building architecture, and could be worth highlighting. The general issue raised by the authors do not necessarily imply a lack of guidelines for biophilic design, since there are several readily available, but may point toward prioritisation or emphasis of criteria to meet certain varying expectations, which was alluded to on lines 52-53.
| 1 | 2 |
buildings12040417_makarova
| 0 |
Similarly, the Green Mark system uses the green plot ratio, assigning credits to greenery provision to enhance biodiversity and visual relief.
| null | null |
P2, L63: Although I wouldn’t completely rule this out, POE surveys may not always provide feedback to the architect, since they are implemented post design-stage and the building would be operated by facility management or the owner. In my view, POE information had more utility diagnosing operation problems, which can be solved when running the building, identifying prominent sources of dissatisfaction that can prompt action to resolve these issues. Lessons learned from 20 years of CBE’s occupant surveys. Building & Cities. Kent et al., 2021. A data-driven analysis of occupant workspace dissatisfaction. Building and Environment. Cheung et al. 2021. Occupant satisfaction with the indoor environment in seven commercial buildings in Singapore. Recently POE studies, also using office data, advocate this as benefit to their implementation, albeit not necessarily being the only reason: Graham et al., 2020.
| 1 | 2 |
buildings12040417_makarova
| 0 |
This becomes an issue later, since some aspects referring to biophilic design become unclear.
| null | null |
P3, L92: I think refers to “has helped” given the five decades predating this.
| 1 | 2 |
buildings12040417_makarova
| 0 |
Response 7: The method of selection of the biophilic design attributes/patterns for workplace is: Step one, find out the correlated biophilic design characteristics from the two mainstream biophilic design frameworks.
| null | null |
P3, L106: While I generally agree with, questions could be raised to whether POE scales should be used to evaluate biophilic design evaluation. Biophilic design is known to elicit mental and physical health benefits, as stated by the authors on page 1, lines 29-32. Therefore, it would be more appropriate to use psychological scales (e.g., PANAS or psychological restoration), instead of design orientated question or survey. If the authors agree with this, this aspect could be revised.
| 1 | 2 |
buildings12040417_makarova
| 0 |
Their feedback would be valuable for designers to note that application of the biophilic design attributes in the office design can enhance the experiences and evaluations of workers.
| null | null |
Something I felt would useful would at the beginning would be a clear definition for what “biophilic attributes” refers to. Figure 1 provides some insights into this, but these listed attributes span across different domains and the communal features are not that apparent. This becomes an issue later, since some aspects referring to biophilic design become unclear.
| 1 | 2 |
buildings12040417_makarova
| 0 |
The figures and pictures have been adjusted in the revised manuscript.
| null | null |
P4, L173-174: The authors state that seven of the patterns from the 14 patterns of biophilic design were discarded. If this was the case, then please better articulate its overarching utility in this study, considering that half of the patterns were not relevant to the research scope.
| 1 | 2 |
buildings12040417_makarova
| 0 |
These are exploited to show a new biophilic design framework for the workplace according to the users’ points of view (based on the POE results).
| null | null |
P4, L180-183: In traditional POE studies and general building science research, daylight, thermal comfort, and air-quality, would be considered as indoor environment parameters (as examples, please see refs. in comment #4), while office layout and building form would be considered a physical and architectural parameters. Reading further to page 5, lines 189-192, the authors begin to suggest to this, but referred to them and others indoor environmental parameters as factors for the workplace. I would suggest better rationalising the connections between the nine design parameters to biophilia to make these more overt.
| 1 | 2 |
buildings12040417_makarova
| 0 |
Biophilic design is certainty an area worthy of interest, and the authors’ endeavours along this research line were appreciated and were something, I felt, contributes the knowledge in this domain.
| null | null |
Please consider simplifying the figure. Figure 1: The image presenting all the linkages is very interesting and is worth emphasising, but contains an overwhelming degree of information, and the text and line sizes are too small for readership. For example, some text boxes many not need further explanation (e.g. presence of water); also the lines connecting column A to the same patterns in column 4 could be colour coordinated.
| 1 | 2 |
buildings12040417_makarova
| 0 |
Step two, we neglect the patterns which are not representative in office environment (please find the detailed explanations in the respond for Comment #8) and specify the selected design patterns to nine biophilic design attributes.
| null | null |
Table 2: Please consider providing further explanations for this table. It was not clear what the authors wanted to show.
| 1 | 2 |
buildings12040417_makarova
| 0 |
Response 9: We believe that there is no conflict between the different classifications.
| null | null |
P8, L245: Please specify why these two offices were of interest (e.g., were they comparable or had specify architectural features worthy of study). If possible, please provide more characteristics (e.g., size, floor area, furniture layout (e.g., open-plan or enclosed), etc.) for each office. Later (P10, L299), it says 201 questionnaires were collected, with 161 occupants taking part in the Singaporean office. This led me to believe that this office was much larger than the building studied in China. An image showing the indoor conditions and outdoor façade for each might be beneficial. Many of the explanations found in section 3.1 could be moved into this part of the manuscript, since they many describe and show the existing office conditions and to do necessarily form part of the main results.
| 1 | 2 |
buildings12040417_makarova
| 0 |
While there is likely some share attributes (e.g.
| null | null |
Section 3.3. Although I appreciated the thoroughness to which the descriptive statistical was explained, I wasn’t convinced the mean was the best indicator for the data, considering that evaluation scores were collected on a 5-point scale and not a continuous linear one. In-lieu of the mean, please consider using the median and inter-quartile range as the central tendency and dispersion indicators. Figures 1 and 4 can be removed, as the assumption of normality no longer applies (also on P15, L399-400), or replaced with boxplots.
| 1 | 2 |
buildings12040417_makarova
| 0 |
Stacked graph with percentage responses for individually arranged items (from the bottom with a high percentage of disagreement to the top with high percentage of agreement).
| null | null |
Table 8: Please consider applying benchmarks for what constitute reasonable levels for internal consistency, when using the Cronbach’s Alpha (e.g., α>0.7): Please see, for example: Taber, 2018. The use of Cronbach’s Alpha when developing and reporting research instruments in science education. Research in Science Education. Tavakol et al. Making sense of Cronbach’s Alpha. International Journal of Medical Education.
| 1 | 2 |
buildings12040417_makarova
| 0 |
POE scales do not likely target biophilic elements in architectural designs directly, since a direct question (e.g.
| null | null |
Figure 3. The plot is well presented. A few minor notes for improvement: 1) Please consider adding short or abbreviated labels referring to the actual question, instead of codes (e.g., GH3-Q10). This would make it easier for the reader; 2) Round the percentages to the nearest whole number.
| 1 | 2 |
buildings12040417_makarova
| 0 |
This seems to be a core aspect of their work but did really emerge from the final section of their work in the same way it was emphasized in the abstract.
| null | null |
P17, L434: Please correct the unfortunate citation error on this line.
| 1 | 2 |
buildings12040417_makarova
| 0 |
c) Furthermore, the questionnaire results enhance our knowledge on the practical ap-plication of biophilic design frameworks for the workplace and contributed to more framework design consideration.
| null | null |
P18, section 4.2: Similar to comment #13, the data may be more suited to a Spearman’s correlation test, instead of the Pearson’s correlation coefficient. Due to the reasonable size of the dataset collected, it may not change the interpretation, but would help improve the analytical rigour.
| 1 | 2 |
buildings12040417_makarova
| 0 |
2, Photo in table 6 should check the copyright of these photo.
| null | null |
The sentence reads: Homogenous subsets with significant discrepancies (differences?) across subsets, leading to no significant differences across subsets. The above is not easy to grasp. If the information is accurate, please consider amending this to make this clearer. P18, L448-450: Please check whether the sentence is accurate, and correct the table caption numbers; I believe these should be Tables 10 and 11 and 12, not 1, 2 and 3.
| 1 | 2 |
buildings12040417_makarova
| 0 |
1) these two cases are limited in representing all the workplace biophilic designs.
| null | null |
While the conclusions were well structured, I felt the authors could have highlighted more the main takeaway messages from their endeavours, in particularly the relationship between biophilic design and occupant health and wellbeing. This seems to be a core aspect of their work, but did really emerge from the final section of their work in the same way it was emphasised in the abstract.
| 1 | 2 |
buildings12040417_makarova
| 0 |
While this is somewhat accurate, it might be more appropriate to elucidate this as an “inherent affinity”.
| null | null |
For their response to comment #6, while I generally agreed with the authors, I felt that it didn’t quite address what I tried to originally convey. POE scales do not likely target biophilic elements in architectural designs directly, since a direct question (e.g., how satisfied are you with the biophilic features) may not accurately depict every beneficial nuance they offer (e.g., psychological recovery). Mayer’s connectedness to nature scale) to help measure them. My generally feeling is that scales, from other domains (i.e., outside of POE studies) have been adopted for this reason, and a short sentence explaining the rationale supporting the lack of scales for biophilic design could be provided to briefly mentioned this. Instead studies may elect to use, for example, other relatable scales, which may not have originally been designed for POE surveys (e.g.
| 3 | 2 |
buildings12040417_makarova
| 0 |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.