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.
Your article is now Accepted. Best Regards, and thank you for choosing PeerJ Journals
Dr. Manuel Jiménez
[# PeerJ Staff Note - this decision was reviewed and approved by Jafri Abdullah, a PeerJ Section Editor covering this Section #]
No comment.
The authors have adequately addressed my comments.I only suggest a small modification. In the 'Study Instrument' section, when defining the group of subjects who do not exhibit any symptoms of EA, it seems inaccurate to state that the minimum value is '0' points, as the Likert scale ranges from 1 to 5. The minimum score for this group should actually be 6 points, instead of 0 points.
No comment.
I believe that the authors have significantly improved the manuscript and have responded to all my suggestions.
Dear Authors,
Thank you for considering PeerJ to submit your manuscript titled: "Exercise addiction and well-being among clients at a sport center." The reviewers suggest some substantial changes that I completely agree with. Please pay attention to the reviewers' comments.
Sincerely,
Dr. Manuel Jimenez
The English language used in the manuscript is adequately clear and professional. However, the Introduction is insufficiently focused and the Methods section still lacks important details. Raw data are supplied.
* It seems to be that the authors simply added as many variables to a model as possible and explore characteristics that were associated with EA. If so, this reduces the potential contribution of the manuscript to the domain of exercise addiction. I would recommend that the authors perform extensive literature review to identify factors that are known to be predictors of exercise addiction, and identify characteristics that could be a potential determinant but has not yet been assessed with regard to their association with exercise addiction. Developing such a clear hypothesis and testing it systematically will enable the manuscript's logical structure to be more aligned with deductive reasoning and improve the focus of the manuscript.
METHODS
Please add the following sub-sections to the METHODS section with adequate details in order to provide adequate details for potential replication of the study:
* Study population and participants (with inclusion and exclusion criteria)
* Sample size calculation
* Study instrument
* Data collection
* Data management
* Data analyses (please add details regarding how the authors identified potential confounders and built the multivariable models)
* Ethical considerations
Please see my full remarks below
RESULTS
* In TABLE 1, please present univariate findings rather than cross-tabulation
* In TABLE 1, if possible, please show the components of the EAI inventory in univariate analyses.
* Please rename current TABLE 1 as TABLE 2, please rename current TABLE 2 as TABLE 3
* Please consider merging a part of the old TABLE 3 (being male, frequency of exercise >3 times per week, and metabolism thinking) with the current bivariate analyses in the new TABLE 2. Please merge the new TABLE 3 with the remaing of the old TABLE 3 (psychological well-being and physical well-being). This will make the RESULTS aligned with the new suggested objectives.
* I find the inclusion of exercising >3 times per week to be confusing. If those who are addicted to exercise more prone to exercising frequently, then aren't these measurement collinear?
Please see my full remarks below
Thank you for the opportunity to review this manuscript. The topic of exercise addiction is interesting and should be considered for publication in PeerJ. However, there are a number of issues that the investigators should consider and revise the manuscript.
Overall Comments:
* It seems to be that the authors simply added as many variables to a model as possible and explore characteristics that were associated with EA. If so, this reduces the potential contribution of the manuscript to the domain of exercise addiction. I would recommend that the authors perform extensive literature review to identify factors that are known to be predictors of exercise addiction, and identify characteristics that could be a potential determinant but has not yet been assessed with regard to their association with exercise addiction. Developing such a clear hypothesis and testing it systematically will enable the manuscript's logical structure to be more aligned with deductive reasoning and improve the focus of the manuscript.
TITLE
Although the study findings focused on association between exercise addiction and demographic characteristics and physical outcomes, this was not in the title. The term "well-being" was non-specific and ambiguous. Please consider revising the title to reflect the population, comparison groups, and outcomes in a more emcompassing manner.
ABSTRACT
* Background: I would recommend the authors to first define exercise addiction. The authors should also make sure that the content of the background is coherent with the objective statement.
* Methods: Please add a phrase to contextualize the study setting. Where is this sport center located? Also, how were data collected?
* Results: If the authors do not have a clear hypothesis beforehand with regard to predictors of exercise addiction, then please only focus on factors associated with exercise addiction to save space.
* Conclusion: Considering the study design and potential issues with measurement, i.e., potential oversensitivity, I would recommend that the authors abstain from making overclaims, especially in the second sentence ("Keeping exercise at moderate level might protect against physical harm"). Please consider revising this section extensively. Please consider replacing the second sentence with remarks regarding potential limitations of the study.
INTRODUCTION
* Insufficiently focused introduction. I would recommend that the authors start with defining exercise addiction and their potential determinants, including a literature review of known predictors of exercise addition. Then, present the knowledge gaps and the authors' own hypotheses. Right now, the "there is no study on the effects of EA on well-being in Thai people" is a weak rationale that made the manuscript sounds more like a replication study conducted in Thailand rather than an original work with proper novelty, which it is. Please revise the introduction extensively.
* Revising the Objective Statement. Considering that in the association between exercise addiction and demographic characteristics, exercise addiction is the outcome. However, in the association between exercise addiction and quality of life, exercise addiction is an exposure. As such, I would recommend that the author split the objective statement into two distinct objectives: 1) to assess the extent to which ..... is associated with exercise addiction among ...........; 2) to assess the extent to which exercise addiction is associated with quality of life among ..............
METHODS
Please add the following sub-sections to the METHODS section with adequate details in order to provide adequate details for potential replication of the study:
* Study population and participants (with inclusion and exclusion criteria)
* Sample size calculation
* Study instrument
* Data collection
* Data management
* Data analyses (please add details regarding how the authors identified potential confounders and built the multivariable models)
* Ethical considerations
RESULTS
* In TABLE 1, please present univariate findings rather than cross-tabulation
* In TABLE 1, if possible, please show the components of the EAI inventory in univariate analyses.
* Please rename current TABLE 1 as TABLE 2, please rename current TABLE 2 as TABLE 3
* Please consider merging a part of the old TABLE 3 (being male, frequency of exercise >3 times per week, and metabolism thinking) with the current bivariate analyses in the new TABLE 2. Please merge the new TABLE 3 with the remaing of the old TABLE 3 (psychological well-being and physical well-being). This will make the RESULTS aligned with the new suggested objectives.
* I find the inclusion of exercising >3 times per week to be confusing. If those who are addicted to exercise more prone to exercising frequently, then aren't these measurement collinear?
DISCUSSION
* I'm rather surprised that 92.5% of the clients at the sports center had either partial or full symptoms of EA. Could it be that the cut-off point for partial EA have been too low and made the assessment too sensitive? Please consider discussing this issue in detail.
* Please also comment more on potential construct validity or lack thereof between your exposure and outcome of interest and how your variables were formed, particularly on how you measured exercise addiction and psychological and physical well-beings. Could these measurments have been subjected to information bias? Self-serving or social desirability biases? What would be your recommendation for future investigators on how to measure these complex issues.
* Are there potential psychosocial determinants of exercising that could have confounded the associations you observed between demographic characteristics and exercise addiction?
* Please also add one final paragraph on strengths and limitationsof the study.
I look forward to continue working with the investigators and the journal in the future iterations of this manuscript.
This study evaluates the influence of exercise addiction on the physical and psychological well-being of clients of sports complexes. The topic is interesting and it is clearly written.
However, I have some specific comments:
In general, it is necessary to focus the objective of the research. This must be coherent between the introduction (line 78) and the discussion (line 180). Once the objective is clarified, the introduction may need to be improved and information added.
Authors should consider the existence of more current references that they should include in the introduction. The title accurately perhaps not reflects the nature of the study.
Introduction:
- Line 54. There are authors who differentiate the concept of exercise addiction and exercise dependence. Since the authors focuses on exercise addiction, it is advisable to omit "or exercise dependence" from the statement unless the distinctions between the two terms are clarified.
- Line 56. Prevalence. It is suggested that the authors explore additional studies that discuss varying prevalence rates of exercise addiction in gym facilities.
- Before the objectives, it is recommended that the authors provide a paragraph outlining the current understanding of how exercise addiction influences quality of life or well-being.
It is considered necessary to improve the research question. The goals are relevant but should be concreted.
The research is considered rigorous and carried out with good technical and ethical standards. The methods are described with enough detail and information to replicate them.
I have some specific comments:
Materials and Methods
Participants. The age range of the participants spans from 18 to 60 years, with a mean age of 27.5 (SD=10.9). It is recommended to consider excluding older subjects from the study if their number is small, as their inclusion could potentially skew the results.
Line 106. Is it possible that there was an error in the indicated score ranges?
Line 121. "The authors have permission to use this instrument from the copyright holders." If the authors are referring to the Eudaimonic Well-being Questionnaire, please put the phrase at the end of the previous paragraph.
The topic of this research is novel and has an impact on current literature. The authors adequately justify the lack of research related to their objectives.
I have some specific comments:
Results
Sex. The gender distribution of the sample is satisfactory; however, no discernible influence between sex and variables such as psychologica and physical (knee outcome) well-being has been identified.
Table 1. The division of the sample into the three indicated age groups is not consistent with the range of the sample (18 to 60 years).
Line 187. The statistics do not indicate that, it is suggested to change the phrase.
Line 201. It is suggested to verify the researcher's last name.
The authors conclude that EA depends on the frequency and number of hours of training, however, in table 3, in the linear regression analysis, they show that the frequency of exercise does not have a significant value.
Conclusions. It is suggested that the conclusions align with the primary objective of the study, followed by naming those that reflect the results of secondary objectives.
Authors should improve the article by initially clarifying the primary and secondary objectives. Subsequently, it is recommended to restructure the introduction, discussion, and conclusion to align with these objectives.
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.