Passion for Studying and Emotions
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The specific remarks cover feedback on sentence and/or word level. The specific remarks can include a quote from your original manuscript to refer to a specific section. The specific remarks will refer to page (emphasis added in boldface; e.g., 1.15/16) and row(s; e.g., 11.15/16).
Specific remarks:
p.1.5 “factors in students’…” = Do you mean for students’ academic functioning?
p.1.5/6 “can be considered” = For what?
p.1.10 I would revise/restructure that sentence to make it easier to read.
p.1.30 Why do you immediately start your introduction with a sub header? It seems like you started with a theoretical framework. This means you need to write an introduction for your theoretical framework.
p.1.32 “to which they devote time and effort” = Does this also include the desire to devote time and effort? Moreover, it is always time AND effort or can it also be one of those?
p.1.32 An en dash is not the same an as em dash. Please revise.
p.1.33 Avoid back-to-back brackets: (OP)[1] = [OP; 1].
p.1.35/36 Is self-determined motivation the same as autonomous internalization? But that is your conclusion and not the conclusion
p.1.38 “It has been shown” and in the following sentence you talk about “ambiguous role” = Illogical. Can you rephrase?
p.1.40 Does “and” need to be replaced by “and/or”?
p.2.48 – 57 This is difficult to read. Can you present this in a table?
p.2.74 “an important factor” = If you feel the need to use the word “important” I would suggest to take a look at your argument or to replace it with “crucial” or “relevant”.
p.2.78/83 I do not understand how the quote relates to how you use the concept in your manuscript. I would suggest to work more with signaling words to create more coherence.
p.3.116/117 “can be considered” = For what?
p.3.128–138 This information needs to be presented in the Method (or Methods or Methodology).
p.3.139–146 This is not an hypothesis. You only pose one hypothesis; the remaining information is redundant. The hypothesis can be presented alongside your aim of the study.
p.4 What is the reliability reported on by the authors of the instrument and/or scale?
p.Table1 The table can be presented more concise by using abbreviations albeit the table is not fitting the page well (enough). By making the table wider so it covers the width of the page, the column “Variables” will be wider and the text will fit better.
p.Table3 I would suggest moving this to the appendices.
row260* You use three decimal numbers and earlier in your manuscript you used two. This has to be consistent.
p.Table4 The column with the description of the effect size needs a source.
*Note. Page numbers are not displayed on this/these page(s).
See above.
Author Response
We would like to thank the reviewers for their positive feedback on our submission. The constructive comments of both reviewers helped us to significantly improve the quality of our paper. We have been through all comments one by one, edited the manuscript in detail, and added new material where required. We hope the editors and reviewers find the revised version of the manuscript clear and suitable for
publication.
Reviewer 1
The specific remarks cover feedback on sentence and/or word level. The specific remarks can include a quote from your original manuscript to refer to a specific section. The specific remarks will refer to page (emphasis added in boldface; e.g., 1.15/16) and row(s; e.g., 11.15/16).
Specific remarks:
Comment: p.1.5 “factors in students’…” = Do you mean for students’ academic functioning?
Response: Thank you, yes, this was edited here and in other places where applicable.
Comment: p.1.5/6 “can be considered” = For what?
Comment: Thank you, this was edited here and in other places where applicable. We changed “can be considered” into “can be used”.
Comment: p.1.10 I would revise/restructure that sentence to make it easier to read.
Response: Thank you, this was revised.
Comment: p.1.30 Why do you immediately start your introduction with a sub header? It seems like you started with a theoretical framework. This means you need to write an introduction for your theoretical framework.
Response: Thank you. We have deleted subheadings.
Comment: p.1.32 “to which they devote time and effort” = Does this also include the desire to devote time and effort? Moreover, it is always time AND effort or can it also be one of those?
Response: Spending time and energy to an activity constitute the criteria of passion. Thus, for an activity to represent a passion, it has to be significant in people's lives. It is something that they like, and something at which they spend time on a regular basis.
Comment: p.1.32 An en dash is not the same an as em dash. Please revise.
Response: Thank you, we checked the whole paper. We now used an en dash and an em dash where appropriate.
Comment: p.1.33 Avoid back-to-back brackets: (OP)[1] = [OP; 1].
Response: Thank you, this was edited.
Comment: p.1.35/36 Is self-determined motivation the same as autonomous internalization? But that is your conclusion and not the conclusion.
Response: This was revised.
Comment: p.1.38 “It has been shown” and in the following sentence you talk about “ambiguous role” = Illogical. Can you rephrase?
Response: We have edited this sentence. In the first part of the sentence we talked about HP, whereas in its second part we talked about OP.
Comment: p.1.40 Does “and” need to be replaced by “and/or”?
Response: This has been edited.
Comment: p.2.48 – 57 This is difficult to read. Can you present this in a table?
Response: We believe that presenting the results of these two studies in a table will be redundant as this information is presented shortly in the theoretical part, as well as our study is not a meta-analysis or systematic review, where literature reviews are usually presented in the form of tables. However, we are happy to present this in a table in supplementary materials if the reviewer believes that is necessary.
Comment: p.2.74 “an important factor” = If you feel the need to use the word “important” I would suggest to take a look at your argument or to replace it with “crucial” or “relevant”.
Response: This has been edited.
Comment: p.2.78/83 I do not understand how the quote relates to how you use the concept in your manuscript. I would suggest to work more with signaling words to create more coherence.
Response: This has been edited.
Comment: p.3.116/117 “can be considered” = For what?
Response: This has been edited.
Comment: p.3.128–138 This information needs to be presented in the Method (or Methods or Methodology).
Response: We have now presented this information in the method section.
Comment: p.3.139–146 This is not an hypothesis. You only pose one hypothesis; the remaining information is redundant. The hypothesis can be presented alongside your aim of the study.
Response: We have now deleted the redundant information.
Comment: p.4 What is the reliability reported on by the authors of the instrument and/or scale?
Response: We have now provided the requested information.
Comment: p.Table1 The table can be presented more concise by using abbreviations albeit the table is not fitting the page well (enough). By making the table wider so it covers the width of the page, the column “Variables” will be wider and the text will fit better.
Response: Thank you, the table has been edited.
Comment: p.Table3 I would suggest moving this to the appendices.
Response: We have now removed this table to the appendices.
Comment: row260* You use three decimal numbers and earlier in your manuscript you used two. This has to be consistent.
Response: For presenting LPA indices, we used the numbers with three decimal digits, as it was presented in our statistical programme output, and as it is recommended in LPA guidelines. However, if reviewers or editors would like to use two decimal digits form, we are happy to change them.
Comment: p. Table4 The column with the description of the effect size needs a source.
Response: We have now provided a source for the requested information.
Comment: *Note. Page numbers are not displayed on this/these page(s).
Response: Thank you for your efforts.
Reviewer 2 Report
Dear Autor(s). Please review the suggestions made to increase the quality of the article.
- In the abstract, including the methodology used
- Please check the number of words The abstract should have a total of about 200 words maximum, your abstract has 303 words.
- The introduction should not include headings and/or subheadings (Passion for studying, Passion for studying and its psychological correlates, Passion and emotion regulation, The aims of the study, Hypotheses of the study)
- Lines 41 and 42 unify information or idea from the same authors [4,5].
- Line 49: Check the parenthesis
- Check citations: Name and number followed where appropriate, try to follow the journal's suggestions for this point throughout the paper, e.g. lines: 50, 53, etc. Saville et al. [10]........
- Lines 83 and 85, unify the information obtained from [19].
- Lines 86 to 89: it is mentioned that there are five adaptive strategies and only three are included, similarly, it is mentioned that there are 4 maladaptive strategies and three are indicated, please revise this point.
- The hypothesis is not clear, please rephrase it specifically.
- Include the number of headings in 2. Materials and Methods / 2.1. Participants and Procedure
- Both in the analysis and in the results, there is no analysis between genders, which could provide interesting information to determine which of them is more predisposed in the areas studied (HP and OP).
- In the discussion, as in the introduction, it is not necessary to include headings. (Passion, emotion regulation, and emotional reactivity)
- Limitations and strengths of the study can be included in the same paragraph for smooth reading.
- The discussion and conclusions are partially supported by references, please check this and fit it: There are some strong points of the article that could have an impact on the field, such as the topic and its impact on the existing literature. The manuscript is approved for publication only after major changes.
- Include DOI, URL, or links in the references
Minor editing of English language required
Author Response
We would like to thank the reviewers for their positive feedback on our submission. The constructive comments of both reviewers helped us to significantly improve the quality of our paper. We have been through all comments one by one, edited the manuscript in detail, and added new material where required. We hope the editors and reviewers find the revised version of the manuscript clear and suitable for publication.
Reviewer 2
Dear Autor(s). Please review the suggestions made to increase the quality of the article.
Comment:
- In the abstract, including the methodology used
- Please check the number of words The abstract should have a total of about 200 words maximum, your abstract has 303 words.
Response: We have no shortened the abstract. It has 197 words.
Comment: - The introduction should not include headings and/or subheadings (Passion for studying, Passion for studying and its psychological correlates, Passion and emotion regulation, The aims of the study, Hypotheses of the study)
Response: This has been edited.
Comment: - Lines 41 and 42 unify information or idea from the same authors [4,5].
Response: This has been edited.
Comment: - Line 49: Check the parenthesis.
Response: This has been edited.
Comment: - Check citations: Name and number followed where appropriate, try to follow the journal's suggestions for this point throughout the paper, e.g. lines: 50, 53, etc. Saville et al. [10]........
Response: This has been edited in the whole paper.
Comment: - Lines 83 and 85, unify the information obtained from [19].
Response: This has been edited.
Comment: - Lines 86 to 89: it is mentioned that there are five adaptive strategies and only three are included, similarly, it is mentioned that there are 4 maladaptive strategies and three are indicated, please revise this point.
Response: As we provided only the examples (we used "e.g., ..." in parentheses) of adaptive and maladaptive strategies, we included only three strategies (as examples).
Comment: - The hypothesis is not clear, please rephrase it specifically.
Response: Following reviewers' recommendations, we have edited our hypotheses.
Comment: - Include the number of headings in 2. Materials and Methods / 2.1. Participants and Procedure
Response: This has been edited.
Comment:- Both in the analysis and in the results, there is no analysis between genders, which could provide interesting information to determine which of them is more predisposed in the areas studied (HP and OP).
Response: Thank you, we have calculated gender differences in HP and OP scores. We found no statistically significant differences, and noted it in the paper.
Comment:- In the discussion, as in the introduction, it is not necessary to include headings. (Passion, emotion regulation, and emotional reactivity)
Response: This has been edited.
Comment:- Limitations and strengths of the study can be included in the same paragraph for smooth reading.
Response: This has been edited.
Comment:- The discussion and conclusions are partially supported by references, please check this and fit it: There are some strong points of the article that could have an impact on the field, such as the topic and its impact on the existing literature. The manuscript is approved for publication only after major changes.
Response: Thank you, the discussion has been enriched with the indicated issues.
Comment:- Include DOI, URL, or links in the references
Response: We added the requested information in the references.
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
The article has improved considerably, and the suggestions have been followed. The following suggestions need to be minimally revised once made the paper would be ready for publication.
Line 89 It is unnecessary to mention the authors' names here.
Line 144 Include space.
Line 353 Check punctuation.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
We thank the reviewer for their constructive comments on the original and new
vesions of the paper.
Referee comments:
The article has improved considerably, and the suggestions have been followed. The following suggestions need to be minimally revised once made the paper would be ready for publication.
Line 89 It is unnecessary to mention the authors' names here.
Line 144 Include space.
Line 353 Check punctuation.
Our response: We carefully considered all the new comments and did our best to properly address them. Thank you for your interest in this work.
