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.
After revisions, one reviewer agreed to publish the manuscript. There is one reviewer left with a minor revision, and I think the author has responded adequately. I also reviewed the manuscript and found no obvious risks to publication. Therefore, I also approved the publication of this manuscript.
[# PeerJ Staff Note - this decision was reviewed and approved by Catherine Myers, a PeerJ Section Editor covering this Section #]
See my comments
See my comments
See my comments
Thanks for opportunity review revised manuscript entitled ‘‘Exploring changes in family routines and family quality of life among Israeli families during the COVID-19 pandemic’’. I would like the thanks to authors. They make a good job for improving quality of their manuscript. Authors revised the manuscript as I requested with a good will. In this form, Introduction reflects very well the previous studies and study aim, Method section and Result section is correct, and Discussion section adequately synthesis to previous study findings and current study results. Overall, I have no further comment regarding to manuscript. I congratulate to authors and wish them success on their future endeavors.
The authors are requested to carefully revise the manuscript and answer the questions raised by the reviewers.
- The manuscript is generally written in clear, professional, and unambiguous English, but the English language should be improved to ensure that an international audience can clearly understand your text. Some examples where the language could be improved include lines 23, 77, 121, 128 – the current phrasing makes comprehension difficult.
- The introduction is too long. Introduction needs more detail. I suggest that you improve the description to provide more justification for your study (specifically, you should expand upon the knowledge gap being filled).
Please clarify and explicitly state the main research question(s) early in the manuscript. Also, explain more clearly how the research addresses a specific, important knowledge gap. Please add what Israeli family routines are considered different from family routines in other parts of the world. so this becomes the main topic
For example, you could add a clear statement like:
"This study investigates how COVID-19 affected family routines and how these changes relate to family quality of life. Although previous studies have examined pandemic stress broadly, there is a lack of research on the specific role and impact of changes in family routines. This research fills that gap by focusing on these routine changes among Israeli families during the first COVID-19 lockdown."
Make sure these points appear early, such as at the end of the introduction or start of the methods section, to guide readers clearly.
Please ensure that the methods section clearly describes all procedures in sufficient detail to allow replication and explicitly outlines the ethical standards followed
To improve the manuscript, please explicitly articulate the study’s novelty and contribution by clearly contrasting your findings with prior work. For example, highlight how examining Israeli family routines specifically during the pandemic’s initial lockdown adds unique insights into family resilience or adaptation strategies that were less understood previously,. Also, consider adding a discussion point on the benefits of replicating similar studies in other cultural or socio-economic contexts to reinforce the generalizability and meaningfulness of replication in this area.
Furthermore, ensure that all claims in the conclusions remain strictly supported by presented data and include recommendations for future research or interventions based on your findings. This will strengthen the manuscript’s impact and utility in the field.
1. Explicitly state the study's unique contribution to family routine research during crises, emphasizing how it fills existing knowledge gaps. Can this change in family routine in Israel be generalized to all families in the world? What are the different cultures?
2. Provide more comprehensive descriptions of participant recruitment, data collection, and ethical approval, including consent procedures,.
3. Expand the introduction to better justify the research questions and link them to previous literature and cultural specificity.
4. More explicitly discuss sample biases, self-report limitations, and study design constraints, suggesting how future research can address them.
5. Highlight the value of replicating the study in diverse populations and contexts to confirm findings and broaden applicability.
6. Keep conclusions closely tied to analyzed results without overstatement, and add clear recommendations for practice and future research,.
7. Clearly state the ethical approval number and affirm confidentiality/anonymity protocols in the methods section.
See my comments.
See my comments.
See my comments.
Authors revised the manuscript as I requested. I congratulate them. One minor revision left behind. Authors must write statistical analyses section following to ' 'However, in our case, the decision not to remove Items 11, 17, and 20 was made based on statistical and theoretical grounds. Although these items showed some degree of cross-loading, the differences between their primary and secondary loadings exceeded the commonly accepted threshold of .10, and their primary loadings remained substantial and conceptually aligned with the intended factors. Additionally, the content of these items was theoretically meaningful and contributed to the internal consistency of their respective factors. Removing these items would have weakened the theoretical coherence and interpretability of the factors.''
The authors are requested to carefully revise the manuscript and answer the questions raised by the reviewers.
Background
1. Contextual Relevance:
The background should effectively set the stage for the study by providing a clear overview of the COVID-19 pandemic's impact on families. It would be beneficial to include statistics or findings from previous research that highlight the specific challenges faced by families during this period, such as increased stress, changes in family dynamics, and the psychological effects on children.
2. Literature Integration:
Ensure that the background integrates relevant literature that discusses family resilience, quality of life, and the psychological well-being of children. This will not only provide context but also demonstrate how your study builds on existing knowledge.
3.Clear Research Gap:
Clearly articulate the research gap that your study addresses. This will help readers understand the significance of your research and its contribution to the field. Highlighting what is already known and what remains to be explored will strengthen the rationale for your study.
Language
1. Clarity and Precision:
The language used should be clear and precise. Avoid ambiguous terms and ensure that each statement conveys a specific meaning. For example, instead of saying "many families faced difficulties," specify the types of difficulties and their implications.
2.Professional Tone:
Maintain a formal and professional tone throughout the manuscript. This includes avoiding colloquial expressions and ensuring that the language reflects the seriousness of the research topic. For instance, phrases like "a lot of stress" could be replaced with "significant levels of stress."
3. Active Voice:
Where appropriate, use active voice to enhance readability and engagement. For example, instead of saying "It was found that families experienced stress," you could say "The study found that families experienced significant stress."
4. Consistent Terminology:
Use consistent terminology throughout the manuscript. If you introduce specific terms (e.g., "family quality of life" or "family routines"), ensure that they are used consistently in all sections to avoid confusion.
Proofreading for Grammar and Syntax:
Conduct thorough proofreading to eliminate grammatical errors, awkward phrasing, and typos. This will enhance the overall professionalism of the manuscript and ensure that the language flows smoothly.
Clarity and Specificity:
A well-defined research question should be clear and specific, outlining exactly what the study aims to investigate. It should avoid vague language and instead focus on particular aspects of family routines and quality of life during the COVID-19 pandemic.
Focused Scope:
The question should have a focused scope that allows for in-depth exploration. For example, instead of a broad question like "How did COVID-19 affect families?" a more specific question could be "What changes in family routines during the COVID-19 pandemic are associated with family quality of life?"
Relevance and Meaningfulness
Timeliness:
The research question should address a timely issue, particularly given the ongoing discussions about the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on families. This relevance enhances the meaningfulness of the research.
Practical Implications:
A meaningful research question should have practical implications for families, policymakers, and practitioners. It should aim to provide insights that can help improve family well-being and resilience during crises.
Data Collection Instruments
1. Use of Mixed Methods: While quantitative data collection through surveys is valuable, incorporating qualitative methods (e.g., interviews or focus groups) could provide deeper insights into family experiences and coping strategies during the pandemic. This mixed-methods approach could enrich the findings and provide context to the quantitative data.
2. Pilot Testing: Conducting a pilot test of the questionnaires could help identify any ambiguities or issues with the items, ensuring that they effectively capture the intended constructs.
Data Analysis Techniques
Advanced Statistical Techniques: In addition to paired t-tests and Pearson correlations, consider using more advanced statistical techniques such as structural equation modeling (SEM) or multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) to explore relationships among multiple variables simultaneously. This could provide a more comprehensive understanding of the factors influencing family quality of life.
Longitudinal Analysis: If possible, conducting a longitudinal study that tracks changes over time could provide insights into how family routines and quality of life evolve as the pandemic progresses. This would allow for a better understanding of causality and long-term effects.
the research has significant impact and novelty, addressing critical issues faced by families during the COVID-19 pandemic and contributing to the understanding of family resilience and well-being. Its findings can inform both theoretical frameworks and practical applications, making it a valuable addition to the existing body of literature.
the conclusions of the research are well-stated, effectively linked to the original research question, and limited to supporting results. They provide a clear summary of the study's contributions while remaining grounded in the data presented. Enhancing specificity and suggesting future research directions could further strengthen the conclusions.
1. Strengthen the Literature Review
Identify Gaps: Clearly articulate the gaps in existing literature that this study addresses. This will emphasize the novelty of the research and its contribution to the field.
2. Justification of Methods: Justify the choice of statistical analyses and explain how they align with the research questions. This will strengthen the credibility of the findings.
3. Expand the discussion of limitations, including potential biases and the impact of the convenience sample. Acknowledging limitations candidly can enhance the manuscript's credibility. Discuss the practical implications of the findings in more detail. How can parents, educators, and policymakers apply these insights? Providing concrete recommendations can increase the manuscript's relevance.
See my comments.
See my comments.
See my comments. The findings are possible not valid.
Thanks for opportunity to review manuscript entitled ‘‘Exploring changes in family routines and family quality of life during the COVID-19 pandemic’’ for Peerj Journal. The author/authors examined changes in family routines and family quality of life during the COVID-19 pandemic in Israeli cultural context. The strength of the manuscript includes examining variables of interest in a country where such studies are scarce during the COVİD-19 pandemic. Overall, although the article is generally well written and deserves to be published in this journal some necessary and minor revisions must be made before the publication of the article. Because my main philosophy of reviewing a manuscript as reviewer and sometimes an editor to improve the manuscript and not punishing the authors, I provided very specific and detailed peer review of the manuscript to increase its quality and citation potential. I hope authors of the manuscript may benefit from my review. Necessary revisions reported section by section with the page and line number and when possible with suggestions.
Necessary Revisions
Title
1. Title, Page 4, Line 1-14: The title of manuscript must be revised. Which culture must be emphasized. One revision may be that ‘ ‘Exploring changes in family routines and quality of life during the COVID-19 pandemic among Israeli families’’.
General
1 Author must rearrange Methos section using the subtitles Research Design, Participant, Data Collection Tools, Procedure, and Statistical Analyses and move related information to related sections. In this form it looks messy.
2. Research design section completely missing and must be added to Method section.
3. Keywords are completely missing in the manuscript and must be added.
4. Authors must construct each paragraph at least with three sentences and at most eight sentences along the manuscript.
Abstract
5. Typically structured abstract did not contain Discussion. Moreover, discussion more seems as conclusion. I think following must remove from abstract ‘‘Discussion. The findings emphasize the role of adaptable family routines in managing stress and promoting family well-being during crises. Enhanced
within-family interactions likely compensated for reduced external social and educational
activities, underscoring the protective nature of flexible and responsive family routines
against the backdrop of pandemic-induced stress.’’
Introduction
6. Introduction section contain some problems. Firstly authors generally give information about independent variables almost did not give any information about their dependent variable family quality of life. Authors must first give information about family quality of life and then changes in family routines.
7. Second, authors did not give any information about previous studies and their weaknesess that necessitate their study.
8. Third, authors conducted their study in Israeli cultural context. However, they did not give any information about it. Specifically authors need to answer ‘‘Why it is important and necessary to examine exploring changes in family routines and family quality of life during the COVID-19 pandemic among Israili families? Authors need to answer this in Introduction section at least with two paragraphs.
Method
9. Authors must add research design section to method. It is completely missing.
10. Authors must add results of power analysis. It is missing. What sample size found in power analysis?
11. No need second parent age and standard deviation in following sentence ‘ ‘The mean age of the 253 parents who completed self-report questionnaires was 37.49 years (SD
122 = 6.88), and of the second parent, 37.81 years (SD = 7.13).’’
12. What authors want to mean with academic education in following sentence is unclear ‘ ‘Of the respondents, 41.5% were fathers, and 72.3% had an academic education.’’
13. Following sentence is unclear. What is average monthly salary in Israel ‘‘Additionally, 63.2% of the families reported an income above the average monthly salary, and most of them (73.1%) resided in urban areas.’’
14. In the following sentence SD must be italic. The mean number of children per family was 2.90 (SD = 1.12).
15. Family Quality of Life Scale (FQOL) translation, validity and reliability findings in Israeli cultural context is missing and must be added. Moreover, authors must add sample item from Family Quality of Life Scale.
16. Moreover, for all scales possible scores and meaning of higher scores must be added.
17. Authors used total well-being scale of Family Quality of Life Scale. Thus only Cronbach alpha of total scale must be reported and following must be corrected ‘ ‘The Cronbach’s alphas for each subscale, respectively, pre- and during-COVID were .89 and .91 for family interaction (Items 1, 7, 10, 12, and 18). The Cronbach’s alphas for parenting (Items 2, 5, 8, 14, 17, and 19) were .82 and .86; for emotional well-being (Items 3, 4, 9, and 13) were .75 and .80; and for physical well-being (Items 6, 15, 16, 20, and 21) were .80 and .81.
18. The citation/citations needed for following sentence ‘‘The KMO index ranges from 0 to 1, with 0.65 considered suitable.’’ Moreover, Kaiser & Rice, 1974 suggest .60 not .65.
19. Authors must add Barlett’s test of sphericity findings for PCA both data analyses and results section.
20. PCA and EFA are completely different and PCA ‘ ‘ is not an exploratory factor analysis technique. Following sentence is completely wrong The EFA with principal components extraction and varimax rotation was performed to examine the FRI (Altman, 1991). All EFA statements must change as PCA.
21. Authors used stepwise regression. Stepwise regression used generally when very strong correlations exist in independent variables. However, this is not the case. Authors must conduct standard multiple regression analyses.
Results
22. PCA findings are wrong. As seen in Table 1, item 11, item 20, item 17 cross-loaded to other factors. However, authors did not removed this items. Why? Researchers suggested to remove items with cross loading less than .10.
Discussion and Conclusion
I have no comments for Discussion and Conclusion section as these sections are subject to change.
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.