Variations in Circadian Rhythmicity and Students’ Gender-Related Psychological Conditions during the COVID-19 Lockdown

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

1. The topic of the article is very interesting and valid, but the article requires significant modifications.
2. The abstract needs to be corrected – the part concerning the applied tools lacks coherence and is inconsequent (the author of only one tool was named, not all of the tool names are written as proper names, some of the abbreviations are missing).
3. The research group is relatively small (N=280) – its size requires justification.
4. The introduction is written correctly – it describes the presented topic in synthetic and substantial way.
5. The description of the research group is incomplete – apart from the mean age, also the standard deviation should be provided. As many as 83,6% of the respondents are women, so the intersexual comparisons are questionable, both when it comes to their validity and methodological correctness. Moreover, almost 91% of the students comprising the research group were the inhabitants of the same city – it is necessary to explain the representativeness of the sample or at least to indicate its specificity. It should also be marked in the title and in the abstract. It is also necessary to indicate the exact time of the research.
6. The description of the research tools should be corrected:

(a) Post-Traumatic Stress Scale (PCLS) and Visual  AnalogMood  State  Scale  (VAMS) – information concerning the correlation between the tool and other scales is unnecessary (lines 98-101)

(b) Hamilton Scale – there is no information about the number of items and the scale of the answers

(c) The  worry domains questionnaire – the name of the tool should be in accordance with the way the proper names are written [The Worry Domains Questionnaire].

7. There is no information about the Moroccan authors of scale adaptation in the description of the tools.
8. There are mistakes in the results tables – the quantity of each subgroup (male, female) is signified by n, and the total group by N; p value should only be indicated in Chi-square. The records in the tables are inconsistent, for instance in table 6 standard deviation is abbreviated to sd and described in full name in table 7.
9. In my opinion, the intersexual comparisons are unjustified due to such a significant difference in group sizes (n=234 for women and n=46 for men). Perhaps a good solution would be to characterize the entire group of students, without dividing them into females and males.
10. The use of Chi-square test for comparisons between the means (tables 6-8) is debatable. This test is applied for intergroup comparisons with nominal or ordinal scales of variable measurement. Moreover, the tools used allow for using more advanced statistical analyses (e.g. correlational)
11. The discussion is well-written, yet it refers to the results that are questionable when it comes to their correctness.

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 1 Comments

Point 2: In the abstract the mean age of the sample was stated as required and the names of the tools were corrected as well as the authors of each tool were mentioned.

Point 3: The “Research difficulties” paragraph was added to explain the size of our sample (N=280) and the difficulties encountered in the sampling process and which is one of the research limitations.

Point 4: I share the same point of view.

Point 5 : The rate of females exceeded that of the males and the reason was also explained in the “Research dificulties” section. While the choice of cities was justified and time the research was mentionned “cities where the pandemic was the most widespread at the time of the study (May 2020)”

Point 6 : The description of the research tools were corrected:

¤ The name of tools was adjusted

¤ The Hamilton test was associated by informations about the number of items and the scale of the answers

Point 8 : Mistakes in tables 6 and 7 were corrected ( n and sd)

Point 9 : I considered your suggestion and I combined the two groups into one

Point 10 : This study will be developed further and we intend to enhance it by using more advanced statistical analyses (e.g. correlational)

Point 11: Maybe the correctness of the results seems questionable because of the sampling with a mean difference between the females ans the males rate which I explained previously. However the processing of the data by the SPSS was redone three times and each time we had the same results.

 

 

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors report a thorough and relevant study of changes in circadian rhythmicity, and related physiological and psychological functions, in a sample of school students affected by the Covid 19 pandemic. The intention of the study is clearly presented and the methodology employed is appropriate. I found the results presented were consistent with the data obtained and the interpretations of those results were consistent. As the Covid 19 pandemic has resulted in major changes in social behaviours (including compulsory modifications applied by governments and other sources of authority). It was reasonable to expect from the nature of these changes and previous research, that significant results would be obtained from this study. In this context, this research is a valuable contribution to knowledge.

However I have a number of issues which I feel need to be addressed for this paper to be suitable for publication.

1. The English language employed in this paper is quite coherent and generally well written. However there is a need for careful review. Overall I found the paper to be too verbose. Almost all of the paragraphs of this text could be reduced in length and presented with greater clarity. For example lines 55 to 72 outline the essential principles of circadian rhythms and some of the consequences of disruption due to the maintenance of those rhythms in adolescents. This is essential background information but need not be expressed in so many words as an introduction to this research.  I suggest the authors aim to be more concise.
2. I would avoid using the word "proven" to describe this research (lines 21/22). This does not offer a "level of proof" and I suggest "supported" or "confirmed".
3. It is important that specific facts are included concisely in the text when details are mentioned. For example, line... 
4. I note that much larger number of females compared with males in this study. The authors should comment upon this discrepancy in sampling and both the reasons for this, as well as the possible implications for the results obtained. This is particularly important when the later statistical analysis is discussed.
5. The "Daily Activities Biorhythm Questionnaire" appears to be a central source of data but the validity and reliability of this instrument are not presented (in contrast to the other measures employed). There is reference in the Discussion to this being a collection of questions orchestrated for the study and I believe it is very important that the form and content of this questionnaire are presented.
6. In contrast, the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale is very well known and its statistical qualities well established. These need not be described at length.
7. I suggest that "Likert" be printed with a capital "L" and that the probability values from tests of significance use a small case "p".
8. Line 20: "group" should be plural "groups".
9. I suggest that in a scientific study, it would be more appropriate to refer to "males" and "females" (as is done in line 161), rather than "boys" and "girls". 
10. It is also customary to use the past tense when writing a report from research, as the study has been completed.
11. I suggest that combining several different measures in one sentence is confusing. For example Line133: "When waking up, the majority 63.1% get up after 10 am, 29.4% of which go after noon, compared to 37% who wake up before 10 am, 3.6% of whom are boys, so 76% of our sample are not satisfied with their sleep and 58.8% show difficulties falling asleep." In addition the English is convoluted, making comprehension even more difficult. There are three themes in this sentence: waking times, gender distribution and subjective sleep quality. Reporting upon each theme of the sleep study could be achieved separately but also concisely (I suggest using shorter sentences.)
12. The statistical data in this study is large in volume and the number of tests for significance also large. I suggest that should be measures of "effect size" (eg Cohen's d)  presented in addition to the "p" values. In addition there needs to be a correction for performing multiple tests of significance (eg Bonferroni correction). 
13. Some of the tables are difficult to read because there are many subdivisions of data measures (notably Tables 1, 3 and 4). These tables (at least) would be better presented with solid lines between sub-sections.
14. As this paper will be read by people outside of the Kingdom of Morocco, terms such as "voting period" and "Vespers" need to be defined or alternative labels employed.
15. Several paragraphs need to be re-written to enhance their clarity. For example lines 160 to 165 need to be presented more precisely and concisely. In addition I suggest that phrases such as "However, they (males) show a highly significant superiority over girls..." I understand that the intention is to report a statistical difference but in current English usage, "superiority" has implications of social or moral judgement. I suggest phrases such as "...the rate for males was significantly higher than for females..." Similarly, for example line 174 "...very significant over girls..." would be better written "...significantly lower in females..."
16. Line 176: The word "courss" should be "courses".
17. If the abbreviation "h" is being used for "hours", this should be indicated early in the paper: "hours (h)".
18. I suggest that if referring to comparisons of data obtained from this research and published research, it is important to clarify that fact. For example line 223: "...they are 0.13 above average..." needs to be presented more clearly. I also suggest that in a scientific paper, "mean" would be a better word than "average", but this is a small point.
19. When presenting specific data, the authors should always identify the instrument used to obtain those figures, even if only using an acronym (eg HDRS, VMAS, etc).
20. There is reference to "guilt" and "punishment" as responses by adolescents to the intrusive restrictions upon their lives because of the Covid pandemic. This would benefit from clarification and a comment by the authors, as it would appear very significant.
21. I do not understand in line 322: "..especially in the bladder period..." To what does this refer?
22. Again referring to abbreviations, what is "L" in lines 332/333?
23. Line 354 should include "...Covid 19 pandemic..."
24. Line 366: "HAMILTON" does not need to be in capital letters.
25. Lines 389 and 390: Clarify the links between circadian disruptions and eating disorders. A brief comment and reference would suffice.
26. Line 397: "Good mood..." should be expressed more professionally.
27. I suggest that the authors revise this paper with particular attention to the presentation of the multiple measures and (therefore) results involved. The measures of sleep, mood, activity, eating behaviour, relationships and distressing thought content are all presented but often interwoven in the reports of findings. It would help to separate some of these results and then combine them to exhibit their interactions. The "Discussion" is where we expect that web of results to be fully woven together. 

 

 

 

Author Response

You will find the notes in the attached document 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

I thank the authors for the work and effort put into this research, which presents an attractive study but deserves to be improved.

Introduction:
This section needs to be expanded. There is very little information and this prevents the theoretical contextualisation of the study. The objectives of the study should also be clearly stated at the end of it.

Sample:
The authors should improve the explanation of the sample. For example, they report that the participants belong to middle-income families, did they ask the participants, did they rely on socio-economic information? The authors should explain this part better.

Design and results:
The method is apparently well done, except that the objectives and hypotheses of the study are not clearly known. This should be clarified by the authors. The results are stable. However, I detect a flaw. The authors report significance at 0.000. This will never be true. At some point in the progression a number will appear and therefore, the significance must be p< .001. This should be checked throughout the manuscript.

Discussion and conclusions:
These are two good sections in which the authors have expressed and discussed about their findings. I advise introducing a section/paragraph in conclusions or at the end of the discussion that clarifies the limitations of the study. On the other hand, it is important that the authors start the discussion by presenting their main findings and confirming whether the objectives and hypotheses of the study have been achieved.

Best regards.

 

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 3 Comments

Point 1: The objective of the study was stated at the end of the introduction concise.

Point 2: The personal data of students were obtained from their schools database. Besides the section “Research difficulties” was added to explain the sampling process.

Point 3: The significance at 0.000 were revised and changed to p <0.001 throughout the manuscript.

Point 4: The main findings were shortly cited while the objectives and hypotheses of the study have been partially confirmed at the beginning of the discussion. A paragraph in the end of the discussion explains the limitations of the study.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

I accept the article in present form

Author Response

After another revision of the manuscript I made linguistic corrections when it was necessary. 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

I am satisfied that the authors have addressed all of the concerns I raised regarding the original draft of this paper.

Author Response

After another revision of the manuscript I made linguistic corrections when it was necessary. 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx