Review History


To increase transparency, PeerJ operates a system of 'optional signed reviews and history'. This takes two forms: (1) peer reviewers are encouraged, but not required, to provide their names (if they do so, then their profile page records the articles they have reviewed), and (2) authors are given the option of reproducing their entire peer review history alongside their published article (in which case the complete peer review process is provided, including revisions, rebuttal letters and editor decision letters).

New to public reviews? Learn more about optional signed reviews and how to write a better rebuttal letter.

Summary

  • The initial submission of this article was received on March 31st, 2015 and was peer-reviewed by 2 reviewers and the Academic Editor.
  • The Academic Editor made their initial decision on May 13th, 2015.
  • The first revision was submitted on June 14th, 2015 and was reviewed by the Academic Editor.
  • The article was Accepted by the Academic Editor on June 17th, 2015.

Version 0.2 (accepted)

· · Academic Editor

Accept

Your revisions have substantially improved the manuscript, which is a valuable contribution to the literature.

Version 0.1 (original submission)

· · Academic Editor

Minor Revisions

Both reviewers found the paper to be well done and interesting but request that you extend your description of the sample and some other issues that may influence the generalizability of your findings.

Reviewer 1 ·

Basic reporting

No Comments

Experimental design

The use of Amazon's Mechanical Turk service is not described in enough detail that any evaluation can be made of it. Further, the Analog to Multiple Broadband Inventories is not explained in any detail. Since these are important measures for the study, better descriptions are needed.

Validity of the findings

No Comments

Comments for the author

The sample used needs to be explained in greater detail. Are there any demographics about the sample? The sample itself may have inherent biases. What limitations does the sample pose for the study?

·

Basic reporting

This is an interesting study, linking self-reported personality traits to potentially relevant actions. The study is well executed. The research well designed to test the study hypotheses, and the execution of the study consistent and rigorous. The writing is clear, and the discussion follows from the results.

Experimental design

No comments

Validity of the findings

No comments

Comments for the author

Some extra points the authors might consider including in their discussion:
1. Could the results be explained by generosity being driven by similarity? The recipients deemed more worthy by the highly agreeable participants were those made to seem more agreeable. This alternate explanation could be tested by seeing if highly conscientious participants preferentially rewarded more seemingly conscientious targets, more extrovert participants were more generous towards extrovert targets etc.
2. Is there an element of agreeableness that would be affected by the participant perceiving that his/her actions were being observed? Would the participants of the current study have made the same choices if they believed that people in their social environment would learn of their behavior? I raise this issue because it might have relevance to generalizability of the results.

All text and materials provided via this peer-review history page are made available under a Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.