Datasets:
sash-ka
/
mdpi_arguments_relation

Dataset card Data Studio Files Community
1
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
This sentence has been revised to better reflect the reference used.
2
1
P. 1, L. 40 – I don’t see that the reference actually includes studies of activities of daily living so the authors should revise the sentence or add an appropriate reference.
1
2
brainsci6010008_perova
1
We agree. We consulted with each physician with respect to type and dosage of medication, including whether this was a low, moderate or high dose. We also double-checked each medication and dose with the Physician’s Desk Reference (60th-65th editions). We have added the following information to the methods section “Medication information and dosage were supplied by the patient and their physician and dosage levels (low, moderate, high) were determined through both physician consultation and use of the Physician’s Desk Reference (65th edition).
2
1
P. 2, L. 18 – A reference for the determination that a dosage of antidepressants was “high” should be provided.
1
2
brainsci6010008_perova
1
This addition has been made.
2
1
P. 3, L. 15 – The time post-exercise before scanning was provided, but not the time post-quiet rest.
1
2
brainsci6010008_perova
1
The suggested change has been made.
2
1
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
1
Thank you for catching this omission. This was an oversight on our part and these effect sizes are now included on page 11.
2
1
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
1
These analyses were intended primarily for descriptive purposes. However, we recognize the need to control for multiple comparisons in order to reduce the risk of making Type I errors. Therefore, we created 3 families including 2 correlations each (one for each of the significant regions) and performed a Bonferroni correction, making the critical alpha level for significance 0.025.
2
1
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
1
This has been clarified in the statistical analysis section.
2
1
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
1
This change has been made.
2
1
Nine individuals in each group were included in neuroimaging analyses, this should be indicated in the abstract.
1
2
brainsci6010008_perova
1
This correction has been made.
2
1
In table 3 the subheading "Peak X, Y, X" needs correction.
1
2
brainsci6010008_perova
1
We agree that this would add valuable information to the discussion section and have added the paragraph shown below discussing previous work using neuroimaging to understand the effects of exercise on the brain.
2
1
Consider discussing the results in relation to previous studies on exercise and neuroimaging
1
2
brainsci6010008_perova
1
A growing number of studies have begun to employ neuroimaging methods to better understand the impact of exercise on the brain both longitudinally and acutely. For example, Smith and colleagues [37] conducted fMRI scans pre and post an exercise training program in older adults with mild cognitive impairment and found that exercise improved neural efficiency during cognitive tasks post-intervention. Structural MRI has also been used to show the neuroprotective effects of regular exercise in older adults with respect to preservation of brain volume[38]. In contrast to using neuroimaging to track changes in the brain over time, neuroimaging during and immediately following exercise presents some unique challenges due to artifacts associated with movement and the physiological underpinnings of many neuroimaging methods (e.g. BOLD response). EEG has been used most extensively to explore the effects of exercise on cortical activity [39]. PET and fMRI have also been used, though to a much lesser extent. For example, Boecker and colleagues used PET to demonstrate the effects of a long-distance run on opioid release in the brain and Janse Van Rensberg and colleagues used fMRI to examine brain responses to nicotine craving following 10 minutes of moderate intensity cycling. Our study adds to this important body of literature by using fMRI to show that an acute bout of moderate intensity exercise improved brain mechanisms underlying pain modulation in patients with chronic pain and further highlights the potential benefits of utilizing neuroimaging technology to better understand the more immediate effects of exercise on the human brain.
2
1
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
1
In the revised manuscript, this was corrected as suggested.
2
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_makarova
1
Both cases and controls could have been diagnosed with autism, but it should have been a relative minority. Autism is relatively rare compared to a 314 diagnosis. This issue was added to the study limitations in the revised manuscript. “In the present study, neurodevelopmental diagnoses other than 314.xx were not examined among cases and controls. This limitation of the present study should have had a limited impact on the results observed because of the rarity of other neurodevelopmental diagnoses as compared to a 314.xx diagnosis, but future studies could further evaluate this phenomenon.” Comment 3.
2
1
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
1
We don’t have the exact number, but it is assumed to be a relatively small number.
2
1
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
1
In the revised manuscript, this was corrected with a better reference.
2
1
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
1
In the revised manuscript, this information was added. “This database is available to outside researchers after obtaining approval from the CDC and KP. Information regarding access to this database is at: http://www.cdc.gov/vaccinesafety/ensuringsafety/monitoring/vsd/accessing-data.html.”
2
1
Can the authors address this point: is this database publicly available?
1
2
brainsci6010009_makarova
1
Thank you.
2
1
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
1
In the revised manuscript, this was corrected as suggested.
2
1
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
1
Both cases and controls could have been diagnosed with autism, but it should have been a relative minority. Autism is relatively rare compared to a 314 diagnosis. This issue was added to the study limitations in the revised manuscript. “In the present study, neurodevelopmental diagnoses other than 314.xx were not examined among cases and controls. This limitation of the present study should have had a limited impact on the results observed because of the rarity of other neurodevelopmental diagnoses as compared to a 314.xx diagnosis, but future studies could further evaluate this phenomenon.”
2
1
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
1
We don’t have the exact number, but it is assumed to be a relatively small number.
2
1
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
1
In the revised manuscript, this was corrected with a better reference.
2
1
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
1
In the revised manuscript, this information was added. “This database is available to outside researchers after obtaining approval from the CDC and KP. Information regarding access to this database is at: http://www.cdc.gov/vaccinesafety/ensuringsafety/monitoring/vsd/accessing-data.html.”
2
1
5. Can the authors address this point: is this database publicly available?
1
2
brainsci6010009_perova
1
Thank you.
2
1
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
1
Thank you for the enthusiastic comments.
2
1
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
1
This is now provided in the results section.
2
1
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
1
Thank you! I have now carefully read and edited the paper.
2
1
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
1
True that we do not know the direction of effects. Here, we use predictor in the statistical sense not causal sense.
2
1
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
1
We agree this would be useful but it was not our aim to look at interactions. We also believe interactions such as suggested are better done in longitudinal studies where one can examine moderators.
2
1
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
1
We have attempted to be mindful of causal language and only use it where prior research indicates a direction.
2
1
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
1
We agree this is a major flaw and we thank the reviewer for pointing out projection bias. We now include this in the limitations in the discussion.
2
1
Some measures such as self-reports of peers’ delinquency are also flawed because of a possible projection bias.
1
2
bs5040518_makarova
1
We agree with the reviewer that there is no easy answer to this problem. We now include a discussion of this in the introduction and cite Lynam and colleagues on this exact dilemma. In their paper, they discuss the Perils of Partialing (p.4, line 15), which is what you do when you control for the overlap. That is, one may be removing the reliable aspect of the self-report measures of aggression (when they are highly correlated) and remaining with residual error.
2
1
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
1
The reactive aggressive group did not differ from the combined group on peer delinquency. Thus, both were high on delinquency and peer delinquency. Also, we comment on the overlap between peer delinquency and self-report of delinquency in the results section (p.9, line 14).
2
1
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
1
We have carefully edited the paper.
2
1
There are a number of grammatical and lexical problems throughout the manuscript that need to be taken care of.
1
2
bs5040518_makarova
1
The manuscript has been edited for grammar problems and for clarity. We have also added Table 1 to assist with understanding our predictors and the broader factors they represent in this study.
2
1
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
1
Thank you for the enthusiastic comments.
2
1
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
1
This is now provided in the results section.
2
1
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
1
Thank you! I have now carefully read and edited the paper.
2
1
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
1
True that we do not know the direction of effects. Here, we use predictor in the statistical sense not causal sense.
2
1
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
1
We agree this would be useful but it was not our aim to look at interactions. We also believe interactions such as suggested are better done in longitudinal studies where one can examine moderators.
2
1
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
1
We have attempted to be mindful of causal language and only use it where prior research indicates a direction.
2
1
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
1
We agree this is a major flaw and we thank the reviewer for pointing out projection bias. We now include this in the limitations in the discussion.
2
1
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
1
We agree with the reviewer that there is no easy answer to this problem. We now include a discussion of this in the introduction and cite Lynam and colleagues on this exact dilemma. In their paper, they discuss the Perils of Partialing (p.4, line 15), which is what you do when you control for the overlap. That is, one may be removing the reliable aspect of the self-report measures of aggression (when they are highly correlated) and remaining with residual error.
2
1
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
1
The reactive aggressive group did not differ from the combined group on peer delinquency. Thus, both were high on delinquency and peer delinquency. Also, we comment on the overlap between peer delinquency and self-report of delinquency in the results section (p.9, line 14).
2
1
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
1
We have carefully edited the paper.
2
1
There are a number of grammatical and lexical problems throughout the manuscript that need to be taken care of.
1
2
bs5040518_perova
1
The manuscript has been edited for grammar problems and for clarity.
2
1
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
1
We have also added Table 1 to assist with understanding our predictors and the broader factors they represent in this study.
2
1
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
1
Thank you for this advice. We have trimmed the paper to focus on two of the five elements of sexual subjectivity - only those that were expected to be most relevant to partnered sexual partner: entitlement to sexual partner pleasure and efficacy in achieving pleasure. This has substantially limited the analyses conducted. We provide a rationale for this (see the first paragraph on p.4) and have thoroughly revised the entire paper.
2
1
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
1
We have done this and have also substantially revised the entire Introduction (see new section starting on p. 3 titled Definition and measurement).
2
1
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
1
We have corrected this sentence.
2
1
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
1
We have added to our theoretical explanation for why there would be gender differences (see the section titled Gender Differences in Sexual Behavior, Attitudes, and Sexual Subjectivity, p. 4).
2
1
The authors could provide more theoretical explanation of why there might be gender differences in sexual subjectivity.
1
2
bs6010004_makarova
1
We have substantially revised all sections of this paper to improve the flow and removed some headings.
2
1
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
1
We have also added hypotheses (see p. 5-6)
2
1
More specific hypotheses could be proposed.
1
2
bs6010004_makarova
1
We have revised this section (The Current Study, p.5).
2
1
The section where research questions are described is worded in an awkward way.
1
2
bs6010004_makarova
1
We have moved this content on group difference to the first section of the Results section.
2
1
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
1
Given our focus on only two element of sexual subjectivity, this was no longer an issue because items were the same on measures for males and females.
2
1
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
1
We have added this information on p. 7 in the Procedure section. It reads: Approval from the university Human Research Ethics Committee was obtained prior to data collection. At Time 1 (T1), participants were approached at a university campus in Australia in the week before classes commenced (i.e., during orientation week) and asked to participate in a study "About You and Your Relationships." The front cover of the survey described the questions as focused on personal sexual and romantic experiences, and stressed the confidential nature of the survey.
2
1
What were participants told about the purpose of the study?
1
2
bs6010004_makarova
1
Reducing the number of elements of sexual subjectivity has reduced the number of tests performed.
2
1
Similarly, there are many correlation tests performed which increases Type I error that needs to be addressed.
1
2
bs6010004_makarova
1
We have added hypotheses to the section titled The Current Study on p. 5-6.
2
1
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
1
We have now used multiple imputation to maintain all 295 participants in all analyses.
2
1
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
1
We are sorry that we did not keep a tally of the number of students approached. We have added to the Limitations section of the Discussion about this (see p. 12). It reads, First, the participants in the study were predominantly middle class, Caucasian university students, residing in one region of Australia. There is also the possibility that individuals more interested in sex and relationships chose to participate. Therefore, the results of the current study may have some limited generalizability.
2
1
At the very least, the Discussion should consider how generalizable these results are.
1
2
bs6010004_makarova
1
We agree that this is very important. We have added the Introduction to expand on these points. Unfortunately we could not conduct these suggested analyses. We had very little change in sexual behavior given the way we measured it. Also, we did not have confidence in estimation of sexual behavior for those who did not participate at Wave 2, which could have increased the change. Thus, we have maintained our original analyses, but make this comment in the Discussion (see p. 12-13): Second, probably because the majority of the participants had already experienced coitus prior to the first data collection and because we measured types of sexual behavior and not frequency or some other aspect of behavior, there was high stability in sexual behavior over the one year of this study. Recent statistics show that the majority of Australian year 10-12 students (approximately 15-17 years) have engaged in some form of sexual behavior [12]. Therefore, in order to capture sexual subjectivity as it emerges and develops most rapidly along with change in sexual behavior, future studies may need to begin with a younger population. Recently, Hensel et al. [31] found that, in their adolescent participants, sexual self-concept had a bidirectional relationship with sexual experience, and the same may occur for sexual subjectivity. Future research could examine the possibility of bidirectional relationships between sexual subjectivity and sexual behavior. In addition, no previous study has examined the timing of pubertal development and sexual subjectivity. Evidence suggests that adolescents that mature earlier, compared to their peers, form romantic relationships earlier and experience sexual behaviors earlier [11,55]. In the current and past research, the link between age and sexual subjectivity has been relatively weak [34]. Substituting timing of pubertal status for age may provide more evidence regarding individual characteristics that influence differences in sexual subjectivity and its development over time.
2
1
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
1
We have trimmed the paper to focus on two of the five elements of sexual subjectivity and anticipated that these two elements would show different results. Thus, we have maintained the separate analyses of these two elements. Please see the added Hypotheses on p. 5-6.
2
1
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
1
We have removed these analyses from the paper in an attempt to reduce the number of analyses and streamline the entire paper.
2
1
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
1
Thank you for this suggestion. The reference has been added to the paper.
2
1
I would, of course, be happy if the authors included a reference to my paper in their Introduction or Discussion.
1
2
bs6010004_makarova
1
Thank you for this advice. We have trimmed the paper to focus on two of the five elements of sexual subjectivity - only those that were expected to be most relevant to partnered sexual partner: entitlement to sexual partner pleasure and efficacy in achieving pleasure. This has substantially limited the analyses conducted. We provide a rationale for this (see the first paragraph on p.4) and have thoroughly revised the entire paper.
2
1
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
1
We have done this and have also substantially revised the entire Introduction (see new section starting on p. 3 titled Definition and measurement).
2
1
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
1
We have corrected this sentence.
2
1
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
1
We have added to our theoretical explanation for why there would be gender differences (see the section titled Gender Differences in Sexual Behavior, Attitudes, and Sexual Subjectivity, p. 4).
2
1
The authors could provide more theoretical explanation of why there might be gender differences in sexual subjectivity.
1
2
bs6010004_perova
1
We have substantially revised all sections of this paper to improve the flow and removed some headings.
2
1
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
1
We have revised this section (The Current Study, p.5). We have also added hypotheses (see p. 5-6)
2
1
More specific hypotheses could be proposed. The section where research questions are described is worded in an awkward way.
1
2
bs6010004_perova
1
We have moved this content on group difference to the first section of the Results section.
2
1
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
1
Given our focus on only two element of sexual subjectivity, this was no longer an issue because items were the same on measures for males and females.
2
1
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
1
We have added this information on p. 7 in the Procedure section. It reads: Approval from the university Human Research Ethics Committee was obtained prior to data collection. At Time 1 (T1), participants were approached at a university campus in Australia in the week before classes commenced (i.e., during orientation week) and asked to participate in a study "About You and Your Relationships." The front cover of the survey described the questions as focused on personal sexual and romantic experiences, and stressed the confidential nature of the survey.
2
1
What were participants told about the purpose of the study?
1
2
bs6010004_perova
1
Reducing the number of elements of sexual subjectivity has reduced the number of tests performed.
2
1
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
1
We have added hypotheses to the section titled The Current Study on p. 5-6.
2
1
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
1
We have now used multiple imputation to maintain all 295 participants in all analyses.
2
1
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
1
We are sorry that we did not keep a tally of the number of students approached. We have added to the Limitations section of the Discussion about this (see p. 12). It reads, First, the participants in the study were predominantly middle class, Caucasian university students, residing in one region of Australia. There is also the possibility that individuals more interested in sex and relationships chose to participate. Therefore, the results of the current study may have some limited generalizability.
2
1
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
1
We agree that this is very important. We have added the Introduction to expand on these points. Unfortunately we could not conduct these suggested analyses. We had very little change in sexual behavior given the way we measured it. Also, we did not have confidence in estimation of sexual behavior for those who did not participate at Wave 2, which could have increased the change. Thus, we have maintained our original analyses, but make this comment in the Discussion (see p. 12-13): Second, probably because the majority of the participants had already experienced coitus prior to the first data collection and because we measured types of sexual behavior and not frequency or some other aspect of behavior, there was high stability in sexual behavior over the one year of this study. Recent statistics show that the majority of Australian year 10-12 students (approximately 15-17 years) have engaged in some form of sexual behavior [12]. Therefore, in order to capture sexual subjectivity as it emerges and develops most rapidly along with change in sexual behavior, future studies may need to begin with a younger population. Recently, Hensel et al. [31] found that, in their adolescent participants, sexual self-concept had a bidirectional relationship with sexual experience, and the same may occur for sexual subjectivity. Future research could examine the possibility of bidirectional relationships between sexual subjectivity and sexual behavior. In addition, no previous study has examined the timing of pubertal development and sexual subjectivity. Evidence suggests that adolescents that mature earlier, compared to their peers, form romantic relationships earlier and experience sexual behaviors earlier [11,55]. In the current and past research, the link between age and sexual subjectivity has been relatively weak [34]. Substituting timing of pubertal status for age may provide more evidence regarding individual characteristics that influence differences in sexual subjectivity and its development over time.
2
1
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
1
We have trimmed the paper to focus on two of the five elements of sexual subjectivity and anticipated that these two elements would show different results. Thus, we have maintained the separate analyses of these two elements. Please see the added Hypotheses on p. 5-6.
2
1
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
1
We have removed these analyses from the paper in an attempt to reduce the number of analyses and streamline the entire paper.
2
1
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
1
Thank you for this suggestion. The reference has been added to the paper.
2
1
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
1
The “inherent affinity” is more appropriate, and the term is updated in the manuscript. Revision in Page 1 Line 28:“The term "Biophilia" is evolved from human evolution research and is coined to de-scribe humans' inherent love affinity for the living things in the natural world [1,2].” Point 2:
2
1
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
1
In-text citation in Page 1 Line 44: “Some scholars summarized and classified the natural design features into biophilic design frameworks to guide design activities [25, 39, 40, 50, 51, 52].” Three references are added in the References List: Ulrich, 1993. Biophilia, biophobia, and natural landscapes. The Biophilia hypothesis. USA: Island Press: Washington, D.C. Bjørn et al., 2009. Biophilia: Does Visual Contact with Nature Impact on Health and Well-Being? International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 6, 2332-2343. Ko et al., 2021. A Window View Quality Assessment Framework. Leukos. 1-26. DOI: 10.1080/15502724.2021.1965889. Ko et al., 2021.
2
1
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
1
There are general biophilic design frameworks (e.g., the 24 Biophilic Design Attributes and the 14 Patterns of Biophilic Design) and green building, healthy building standards (e.g., WELL v2 and Singapore Green Mark) that include biophilia into the certification systems in nowadays. And the issue raised by the authors is that these biophilic design frameworks (design guidelines or standards) are general design frameworks (design guidelines or standards) which can be applied to all building typologies (i.e., residential buildings, workplaces, retails, etc). Further research needs to be conducted to develop the design guideline specific for workplace. The sentence was rewritten to demonstrate this argument. Revision in Page 2 Line 56-61: “Although the importance of biophilic design seems to be well-acknowledged, and some international or regional green building and healthy building standards incorporate biophilic design elements into the rating system, such as WELL building standard version 2 and Singapore Green Mark [53]. However, further research on developing building typology-based biophilic design guidelines and assessment methods are necessary.” Point 4:
2
1
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
1
We agree with this comment. Apart from the design evaluation, POE is also one of the mainstream research methods that can effectively diagnosing operation problems. The description and citations were inserted in the updated manuscript. Revision in Page 2 Line 77 ~ 80: “Moreover, from the perspective of building operation, the POE results also provide evaluation and feedback from occupants to the stakeholders and building managers on workplace biophilic design. Since POE is one of the mainstream research methods that can effectively diagnosing operation problems [54, 55, 56].” Citations are added in the Reference list: Graham, L.T., Parkinson, T., Schiavon, S., 2021. Lessons Learned from 20 years of CBE’s Occupant Surveys. Buildings and Cities 2(1):166-184. DOI: 10.5334/bc.76 Kent, M., Parkinson, T., Kim, J., Schiavon, S., 2021. A Data-Driven Analysis of Occupant Workspace Dissatisfaction. Building and Environment 205, 108270 Cheung, T., Schiavon, S., Graham, L.T., Tham, K.W., 2021. Occupant satisfaction with the indoor environment in seven commercial buildings in Singapore. Building and environment (188). DOI：10.1016/j.buildenv.2020.107443 Point 5:
2
1
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
1
The sentence was rewritten in the updated version. Revision in Page 3 Line 109: “It has helped experts to obtain user’s feedbacks over the last five decades [31,32].”
2
1
P3, L92: I think refers to “has helped” given the five decades predating this.
1
2
buildings12040417_makarova
1
Yes, the existing psychological scales are well-developed, but scales for investigating “workplace biophilic design” had not been developed before. Hence, in this study, we develop a method that focus on evaluating the biophilic design elements in workplace. The major scale of the questionnaire consists of three parts (subscales): general health (GH), nature relatedness (NR), and biophilic design evaluation (BDE). The questions in the first and the second subscales are referred to the validated scales--The World Health Organization Quality of Life (WHOQOL) and the nature relatedness (NR). The third scale is focus on evaluation on the biophilic design elements. Hence, the questions in the final section are designed based on the selection of the biophilic design elements/attributes that typically applied in the office design, which are not mentioned in the previous scales.
2
1
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
1
The method of selection of the biophilic design attributes/patterns for workplace is: ŸStep one, find out the correlated biophilic design characteristics from the two mainstream biophilic design frameworks. ŸStep 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. The detailed process is shown in Section 2.1 and Figure 1. ŸStep three, verify the selection of the nine biophilic attributes matches the validated eight factors that affect workers’ satisfaction and productivity (please find the detailed explanations in the respond for Comment #11). In terms of the reviewer think that the listed attributes span across different domains and the communal features are not that apparent, we believe it is due to the research perspective of biophilic design is different from the perspectives of building science and traditional POE studies (please find the detailed explanations in the respond for Comment #9).
2
1
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
1
The authors gave the reason after the sentence in Page 4, Line 173-174 of the original manuscript “Second, the authors neglect seven design patterns from the 14 Patterns of Biophilic Design which are not representative of the workplace design.” to explain why the seven of the patterns from the 14 patterns of biophilic design were discarded: For instance, the patterns “Presence of Water”, “Prospect”, “Refuge”, “Mystery”, and “Risk” (i.e., itemized patterns 5, 11, 12, 13, and 14 in Column B) are recommended but not demonstrative in this building typology (workplace). Those are usually applicable in other building typologies, such as hotels or residential. To further explain why these patterns are recommended but are discarded: 1) First, these design patterns (i.e., the seven discarded patterns of the 14 biophilic design patterns) are recommended because they are proofed that benefits health. 2) However, these patterns are not common in most offices. For instance, in most cases, the employers would not create an office environment that makes the workers feel “Prospect”, “Refuge”, “Mystery”, and “Risk”. 3) Therefore, we only included those biophilic design patterns that relatively easy to apply in the workplace (e.g., greenery, natural light, artworks), and discard those which are not representative in an office design. And the sentences are revised to further explain the discard of the seven patterns. Please see the revised contents in the updated manuscript below: Revision in Page 5 Line 191-197: “For instance, the patterns “Presence of Water”, “Prospect”, “Refuge”, “Mystery”, and “Risk” (i.e., itemized patterns 5, 11, 12, 13, and 14 in Column B) are recommended because they are proofed that benefits health. For instance, in most cases, the employers would not create an office environment that makes the workers feel “Prospect”, “Refuge”, “Mystery”, and “Risk”.” Point 9:
2
1
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
1
We believe that there is no conflict between the different classifications. The same parameters (e.g., daylight, thermal comfort, and air-quality, office layout and building form) can be classified in different classifications (i.e., the traditional POE frameworks and the biophilic design frameworks) by different perspectives. 1) From perspective of building science, building performance, and traditional POE, these parameters (e.g., daylight, thermal comfort, and air-quality) are considered as indoor environment parameters, and office layout and building form are considered a physical and architectural parameters. 2) On the other hand, from the perspective of biophilia and biophilic design, (e.g., factors workers’ satisfaction and productivity), these parameters are re-classified and defined as the factors affecting workplace health. Both classifications validated by previous literatures.
2
1
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
1
We revised the Figure 1. The connections between 24 Biophilic Design Attributes (Column A) and 14 Patterns of Biophilic Design (Column B); The nine biophilic design attributes for the workplace (Column C). First, to simplify the image, we put all the definitions into a new table in the appendix (Appendix A. Definitions of biophilic design attributes and patterns). In case that there are some readers are not familiar with the biophilic design attributes or patterns: Revision in Page 4 Line 164: “These two biophilic frameworks are chosen as research references (definitions of the at-tributes and patterns are in Appendix A).” Appendix A in Page 22: “Appendix A. Definitions of biophilic design attributes and patterns” Second, we fill the correlated boxes with same solid colours to make them more recognizable: Revision in Page 6 Line 207: Point 11:
2
1
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
1
Table 2 made a comparison between the selected nine biophilic design patterns for workplace in this study and the validated eight factors that affect workers’ satisfaction and productivity. There are overlaps between the nine biophilic design attributes and these eight influential factors for the workplace. These overlapped factors highlight the nine biophilic design attributes that are critical to the office design. Hence, the validation of the selection of the nine biophilic attributes are proofed by the previous literature. Sentences are added in the paragraph to clarify the demonstration. Revision in Page 6 Line 215-220: “Table 2 made a comparison between the selected nine biophilic design attributes for workplace in this study and the validated eight factors that affect workers’ satisfaction and productivity. These overlapped factors highlight the nine biophilic design at-tributes that are critical to the office design. The validation of the selection of the nine biophilic attributes are proofed by the previous literature [37].” Point 12:
2
1
Table 2: Please consider providing further explanations for this table. It was not clear what the authors wanted to show.
1
2
buildings12040417_makarova
1
1) The reasons why the two offices are selected for investigation: a) the urban contexts are similar: both the cities (Singapore and Shenzhen) are typical compact, high density Asian mega-cities; b) both the offices are open-plan offices. Revision in Page 9 Line 277-280: “The two offices have similar features: 1) the urban contexts are similar: both the cities (Singapore and Shenzhen) are typical compact, high density Asian mega-cities; b) both the offices are open-plan offices.” 2) The supplemental Information (i.e., temperature, number of employees) are added in the revised version. Revision in Page 9 Table 5: Table 5. The structure is re-constructed in the revised version. The original Section 3.1.
2
1
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
1
The means (SD) are only applied when the assumption of normality applies for the datasets. Revision in Page 18-20 Table 9: Table 9.
2
1
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
1
The Cronbach’s Alpha with an Alpha>0.6 considered acceptable internal consistency in this study. The statement and the references are added in the revised version. Revision in Page 13 Line 381-383: “The Cronbach’s α coefficient value of the main scale is 0.72, while those of the sub-scales GH, NR, and BDE in order are obtained as 0.68, 0.79, and 0.63, indicating that the questionnaire is reliable (i.e., an acceptable reliability: Cronbach's α>0.6) [57, 58] (Table 8).” Citations are added in the Reference list: Morgan, P. J., Cleave‐Hogg, D., DeSousa, S., Tarshis, J., 2004. High‐fidelity patient simulation: validation of performance checklists. British Journal of Anesthesia, Volume 92, (3) 388–392. Cronbach, L.J., 1951. Coefficient Alpha and the Internal Structure of tests, Psychometrika. Vol. 6. 3. 297-334.
2
1
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
1
1) Abbreviated labels referring to the actual questions are added in the Figure 3 (Figure 2 in the revision). But 2) we keep the original percentages (round to one decimal place). We think it is not hard for the readers to understand, and the original percentages (round to one decimal place) is more accurate. Revision in Page 17 Line 431:
2
1
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
1
Thanks for the reminder, the error has been corrected in the revised version. Revision in Page 21 Line 473: “According to Table 10, Pearson correlations indicate that…” Point 17:
2
1
P17, L434: Please correct the unfortunate citation error on this line.
1
2
buildings12040417_makarova
1
Spearman’s correlation test was conducted, and the revised contents are shown in the updated version. Revision in Page 17 Line 440: “Second, Spearman's correlation analysis is utilized to examine the correlation between three subscales.” Revision in Page 21 Line 472-483: 4.2. Intercorrelation between the three subscales (GH, NR, BDE) “According to Table 10, Spearman's correlations indicate that works' nature relatedness (NR) was positively correlated with self-evaluated GH (r = .264**, p < .01). This result also confirms the previously obtained results that people who had a higher evaluation in nature relatedness are also had a higher evaluation on their health. When the occupants feel that they have a strong sense of relationship with nature, it is observed that the biophilic environment would have positive impacts on their health. More importantly, significant correlation is also found in between biophilic design evaluation and self-reported health (GH), r=.270**, p < .01, indicating that office biophilic design has positive values on workers’ psychological health.” Table 10. Intercorrelations between responses of three subscales. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed) Point 18: 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.
2
1
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
1
The above contents have been corrected in the revised version. Point 19: While the conclusions were well structured, I felt the authors could have highlighted more the main takeaway messages from their endeavors, 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 emphasized in the abstract.
2
1
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
1
The Conclusion is rewritten to highlight the relationship between biophilic design and occupant health and wellbeing: Revision in Page 23 Line 514-540: “The significant research outputs from the present scrutiny are shown as following: a) The authors develop a POE questionnaire for evaluating the biophilic design for workplace health and wellbeing. e) The study results contribute to provide designers with evidence-based design at-tributes for workplace design (i.e., the nine selected workplace biophilic design attributes).” Author Response File: Author Response.docx
2
1
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
1