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.
I have reviewed the manuscript and I can confirm that the authors have addressed the reviewers' comments, so the paper is ready for publication.
[# PeerJ Staff Note - this decision was reviewed and approved by Mike Climstein, a PeerJ Section Editor covering this Section #]
Dear authors,
Thank you for your trust in PeerJ to publish your work.
After the peer review, I consider that your article is not suitable to be published in its current format.
Please find attached the suggestion of the reviewers. If you can address to them we can consider again the publication.
Thanks and best wishes.
**PeerJ Staff Note:** Please ensure that all review, editorial, and staff comments are addressed in a response letter and that any edits or clarifications mentioned in the letter are also inserted into the revised manuscript where appropriate.
**Language Note:** PeerJ staff have identified that the English language needs to be improved. When you prepare your next revision, please either (i) have a colleague who is proficient in English and familiar with the subject matter review your manuscript, or (ii) contact a professional editing service to review your manuscript. PeerJ can provide language editing services - you can contact us at [email protected] for pricing (be sure to provide your manuscript number and title). – PeerJ Staff
The paper is well-structured with clear and professional language, providing ample background information and a clear statement of purpose. The referencing is thorough and relevant. Graphs, charts, and data presentations are effectively utilized, contributing to a clear understanding of the study's results.
The analysis methods are appropriate for the type of review conducted. The results support the hypotheses, highlighting patterns in physical activity and sedentary behavior among adolescents in low- and middle-income countries. The paper discusses the limitations and the generalizability of the results effectively.
The paper is comprehensive and provides valuable insights into adolescent physical activity and sedentary behavior in low- and middle-income countries. A suggestion for improvement would be to include more detailed discussion on potential interventions and policies based on the findings. Additionally, future research directions could be more explicitly stated. The paper is a well-executed systematic review with significant implications for understanding and improving adolescent health behaviors in low- and middle-income countries.
The research design is sound, focusing on a systematic review of existing studies, which is appropriate for the research question. The methodology is well-defined and the data collection process, based on the Global Student-based Health Survey, is robust. The study does not involve primary research with humans or animals, thus specific ethical considerations in this regard are not applicable.
Overall, the reporting was good, but some areas need improvement. Please see the comments in the section below.
The methodology could be improved (please see comments below).
This is an interesting review on PA and SB among children from LMICs. Overall, it is a good piece and worth consideration for publication.
I would appreciate the authors to have summarised the findings and evidence on physical activity and sedentary behaviour in school-going adolescents from from LMICs. Overall, the manuscript is well-written. However, I have following suggestions to improve the quality of the manuscript.
Title
- Title of this manuscript is too long; I suggest replacing a new and concise title to deliver the key information.
Abstract
- The abstract should be shortened, particularly in terms of background.
- In abstract, the methodology did not detail how the study was developed and conducted. For a systematic review, such information is necessary. Please revise.
- The language quality should be improved considerably.
Introduction
- The first paragraph was too length; can the authors just present the key information or evidence from the literature?
- The logic and sequence of the introduction was not well-organized, please trim it in a well-presented manner.
- Study rationale should be greatly improved and strengthened. Please do necessary changes.
Method section
- In this section, many aspects must be reconsidered. For example, how did you synthesize the findings from the included studies. The relevant changes must be made to improve the readability and replication of this study. Please have a look at some of the published reviews to learn from them.
Results
Please revise the contents according to the subtitle. For example, section 3.1 was overview of studies. However, the wording in the section was not relevant. Please do necessary changes.
Also, I did not see any values/numbers in the results section. Please add.
Discussion section
This section was generally good, but I suggested the authors should improve the language quality and improve the conciseness of this work.
Overall
I suggest the authors have a major revision to improve the work.
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.