All reviews of published articles are made public. This includes manuscript files, peer review comments, author rebuttals and revised materials. Note: This was optional for articles submitted before 13 February 2023.
Peer reviewers are encouraged (but not required) to provide their names to the authors when submitting their peer review. If they agree to provide their name, then their personal profile page will reflect a public acknowledgment that they performed a review (even if the article is rejected). If the article is accepted, then reviewers who provided their name will be associated with the article itself.
Dear authors,
Thanks for the replies to the reviewers' comments.
The manuscript is ready to be published on PeerJ.
[# PeerJ Staff Note - this decision was reviewed and approved by Bob Patton, a PeerJ Section Editor covering this Section #]
Dear authors,
The manuscript needs some revisions to improve. Respond point by point to the reviewers' comments and resubmit the manuscript.
Thanks!
[# PeerJ Staff Note: It is PeerJ policy that additional references suggested during the peer-review process should only be included if the authors are in agreement that they are relevant and useful #]
[# PeerJ Staff Note: Please ensure that all review and editorial comments are addressed in a response letter and any edits or clarifications mentioned in the letter are also inserted into the revised manuscript where appropriate. It is a common mistake to address reviewer questions in the response letter but not in the revised manuscript. If a reviewer raised a question then your readers will probably have the same question so you should ensure that the manuscript can stand alone without the response letter. Directions on how to prepare a response letter can be found at: https://peerj.com/benefits/academic-rebuttal-letters/ #]
[# PeerJ Staff Note: The review process has identified that the English language must be improved. PeerJ can provide language editing services - please contact us at [email protected] for pricing (be sure to provide your manuscript number and title) #]
no comment
no comment
no comment
See attached PDF
no comment
Participants: It could be better to maximize the participants and add descriptions of relevant demographic characteristics in detail, such as gender.
Procedures: Suggest specify the date range of data/survey collection, considering the depressive symptoms would be different at different test times (month/day/year). And the study mentioned it was conducted during the COVID-19 pandemic, so it’s better to describe the pandemic where participants were.
Results: provide the results with more details, including the description data of participants in the tables or figures.
For instance: Table 1. should add the note of *p< .05, **p< .01, ***p< .001.
no comment
no comment
1.The paper requires extensive language editing. Please ensure in revising your manuscript that this is attended to.
2. It is required to provide more evidence in the introduction that supports the hypotheses and to expand the findings on the role of resilience in the model.
3.Line 207: Please carefully check the symbol in this line. Currently 'ps<.001' is wrong.
no comment
1.It is recommended to include the x2/df and SRMR values, in the results of the structural equations.
2.It is recommended to give more details about demographic characteristics of the study sample, for example the gender and the percentage of reported symptoms of depression.
3.Figure 2 Please carefully check all the path coefficients are standardized values in this figure. Currently 'the path coefficient from trait resilience to depression ' is greater than 1 which means it is unstandardized.
4.To test the mediation effect, the bias-corrected 95% confidence interval (CI) should be calculated with 1,000 bootstrapping samples. If the 95% CI of the indirect effect does not include 0, a significant mediation effect can be established. Please use this method to test the mediation effect in this study.
English is clear but should be revised. Punctuation sould also be revised
Literature references are updated and appropiately quoted. The background of the study is sufficiently convincing
The authors may wish to quote V. De Pascalis regarding the possible relation between BIS/BAS and optimism, which could be studied in further ressearch by the same group
The article structure, figures and the table are OK. Raw data availability is obvious as authors analyzed an open dataset
No comment
No comment
Please check English and punctuation across the text
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.