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,Thank you for the submission of your revised manuscript which is now deemed suitable for publication in Peer J.
Everything fine -- I recommend acceptance
Everything fine -- I recommend acceptance
Everything fine -- I recommend acceptance
Everything fine -- I recommend acceptance
Please proceed to do the minor revisions as suggested by the Reviewer 1, who is a statistician, so that it can be accepted in the next round of submission.
With the following minor amendment, I recommend to publish the paper:
Figure 1:
As authors explained, the label of X axis should be "Global sensitivity to music reward scores (factor score)"
instead of "Global sensitivity to music reward scores"
Table 1
"N=1027" should be "n=1027"
Capital "N" refers to population size and small "n" refers to sample size.
L 226
95% CI has been removed from Table 2. Need to rewrite the sentence accordingly.
L 237
"AC" was not explained before using the acronym. Is it refering to "Acquiescence" in the Table 3? Please explain AC in the text.
No relevant
No relevant
No relevant
The authors have carefully responded to the comments of the three reviewers. I have no further questions or requests.
The authors have carefully responded to the comments of the three reviewers. I have no further questions or requests.
The authors have carefully responded to the comments of the three reviewers. I have no further questions or requests.
The authors have carefully responded to the comments of the three reviewers. I have no further questions or requests.
No Comments
No Comments
No Comments
Thank you for addressing my comments. Best regards.
Dear Authors,
There are fundamental statistical analysis (methodology) issues that need to be looked into. Please revise and redo analysis carefully accordingly to Peer Reviewer 1 on statistical methodology and on discussion and other aspects according to Peer Reviewers 2 and 3 .
Leading zero
Please write as 0.88 instead of .88.
PLEASE CORRECT IN THE WHOLE REPORT.
L 137
"double translation"
It is commonly known as "forward and backward translation."
PLEASE USE THE COMMON TERM, PLEASE.
L 138
"two groups of bilingual (French/English) researchers"
Please write as :
two groups of bilingual (French and English) researchers
"/" stands for "OR". It is not appropriate.
PLEASE CORRECT IN THE WHOLE REPORT.
L138
Forward translation was mentioned as two groups of bilingual ....
PLEASE SPECIFY HOW MANY TRANSLATORS IN EACH GROUP.
L 159
When you were collecting the data online, how would you know that, the respondent is fluent in French??
HOW WAS IT CHECKED?
The same for age above 18. HOW WAS IT CHECKED?
L 194
"Mean age: 22.3 ± 7.8 years ...""
What is the number 7.8? It is not clear. If it is SD, please write as follows:
"Mean age was 22.3 (SD 7.8) years ...."
PLEASE USE THIS FORMAT FOR THE WHOLE REPORT.
NEVER USE THE SIGN "±"
L 221
by Mas-Herrero (0.22 – 0.46),
PLEASE WRITE AS "(0.22 to 0.46)"
Putting "-" in between two numbers is like a "negative sign"
PLEASE DO NOT DO.
THE HISTOGRAME "GLOBAL SENSITIVITY SCORE"
If score is given 1 to 5 for 20 items, it should be ranging from 20 to 100. The graph does not reflect this.
The graph has score less than 20.
PLEASE CLARIFY.
TABLE 1
REMOVE "±" AS MENTIONED ABOVE
REMOVE "-" AS MENTONED ABOVE
RANGE IS A SINGLE VALUE (MAXIIMUM MINUS MINIMUM). IF YOU WANT TO WRITE TWO VALUES, PLEASE CALL IT MINIMUM AND MAXIMUM RATHER THAN RANGE.
TABLE 2
IT IS UNNECESSARY TO PRESENT 95% CI.
IT IS WRONG TO PRESENT 95% CI IN THIS MANNER. 95% CI SHOULD BE PRESENTED WITH TWO VALUES AS LOWER LIMIT AND UPPER LIMIT. IT SHOULD NEVER BE PRESENTD WITH "±"
INSTEAD, PLEASE PRESENT WITH "MEAN (SD)"
TABLE 3
Some of the loadings are negative sign though they were grouped together with other positive items.
RESEARCHER SHOULD RECHECK THAT THESE "NEGATIVE ITEMS" SHOULD BE SCORE REVERSED BEFORE THE ANALYSIS.
PLEASE CONSULT STATISTICIAN PROPERLY. THIS IS UNACCEPTABLE TO PUBLISH AS IT DOESN'T HOLD THE VALIDITY.
PLEASE PUT LEADING ZERO IN THESE ALL DECIMAL VALUES.
END.
This study is not experimental.
Table 3 with negative signs on factor loadings do not show the good validity of the questionnaires. Reanalysis with reverse coding may be required.
1) It is a good important study.
2) Minor presentation related improvement need to be done.
3) Major reanalysis (maybe with reverse coding) is required. Negative signs in factor loadings that you include in the same group of facets are not valid to do so.
No comments
The expeirmental design is straight forward and appropriate
no comments
I find the paper written in a concise and appropriate manner for the most part. I found the general comments on the distribution of the French language not necessary and would recommend to drop them from the introduction.
ll 58 – 68: This section seems out of place, I understand that the mentioned neural pathways and structures are considered to be involved in reward experiences, but this is not made clear. The results are also not discussed in reference to these findings.
l 70: “inter-individual variability in music-induced reward” – could this be expanded? How does music-induced reward differ between people?
Introduction: There is no mention of the literature on anhedonia, which is discussed later on. I think it would be helpful for readers to be introduced to this topic in this section.
l 104: I would suggest adding a brief explanation about each facet and what it entails.
ll 176 – 186, 214 – 217: I would suggest rephrasing these sentences somewhat, as they can be found verbatim in Mas-Herrero et al., 2013.
l 213: I am a little confused where this “control scale” is coming from.
ll 363 – 365: This paper is listed twice in the reference section.
Figure 1: Is it possible to include a graph for the data from Mas-Herrero et al. (2013) for comparison?
No Comments
No Comments
Thank you for providing a French version of the BMRQ. I have some suggestions for editing revisions that would help to make this manuscript more readable in my opinion (see “Basic Reporting”). Best regards.
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.