Review Reports - A Systematic Review of the Impact of Physical Activity on Cognitive and Noncognitive Development in Chinese University Students

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Thank you for inviting me to review this work. First of all, I would like to thank and acknowledge the effort and work done by the authors of this study.

In order to follow and understand the comments made on your work, I inform you that I will respect the order and structure of your manuscript

The summary is confusing and needs to be improved. It talks about primary and secondary education studies to justify the study with university students. This is not well justified.

It talks about variables such as pass rate, and motivation ... to justify the effect of physical activity. These statements cannot be made if they are not supported by studies and results.

The authors focus the study on the Chinese population; is there a reason for this? A review study of these characteristics cannot be justified on the basis of a country criterion. It is important that the authors understand that the purpose of the review is to describe the situation of the research in relation to the topics, not on the basis of the country.

There are very important conceptual errors. For example, the authors say that Scopus is a peer review journal. Scopus is a database of indexed journals and is not a journal as they claim.. …Finally, SCOPUS is a peer-reviewed journal with lavish literature and more (line 119)

Google Scholar is not a database. It is a repository that is neither adequate nor reliable for the selection of quality articles. Google Scholar collects all types of articles including articles that are not necessarily peer-reviewed.

The keywords and the combination of booleans are not appropriate. I have tried to replicate the search and did not get the same results. This is a major problem in the study design.

For example, this combination is wrong ("exercise" OR "physical activity" OR "physical fitness" OR "mental health" OR "physical health")

Such a combination would be more appropriate: ("exercise" OR "physical activity" OR "physical fitness") AND ("mental health" OR "physical health")

Why did you use quotation marks when you only use one word?

The sections of the paper are presented out of order. For example, first, the eligibility criteria are indicated and then the results are described.

In general, the paper presents important weaknesses at the level of methodology and theoretical justification, the results have not been analyzed in-depth and the discussion and conclusions are neither relevant nor generalizable.

I recommend that the authors do not carry out local review studies. The interesting thing about these studies is not what happens in China, but what happens around the world in relation to the chosen topics.

An extensive and thorough English review by a native speaker is required.

Author Response

Cover Letter

January 4, 2023

Sustainability MDPI

Dear Editors and reviewers,

I am writing this letter on behalf of my coauthor regarding our manuscript sustainability-2098817, entitled " A Systematic Review of the Impact of Physical Activity on Cognitive and Non-cognitive Development in Chinese University Students."We want to express our appreciation to the respected editors and reviewers for providing us the constructive comments and suggestions to shape our manuscript for quality publication. According to our original reviewer's last review, we have obtained critical and rational minor suggestions to complete the manuscript's structure and content before the official publication. As you can see below, we have responded to each comment given by the reviewer corresponding to each page's revision has been made.

Reviewer 1 Comments

Comment 1: The summary is confusing and needs to be improved. It talks about primary and secondary education studies to justify the study with university students. This is not well justified.

Response: Keeping in the consideration the reviewer comment we add more elaborations in summary to justify the study need. Under the 1.1.Background section of the study full details are given.

Comment 2: It talks about variables such as pass rate, and motivation ... to justify the effect of physical activity. These statements cannot be made if they are not supported by studies and results.

Response: As per the comments more literature is added to address the justification Line 85-90.

Comment 3: The authors focus the study on the Chinese population; is there a reason for this? A review study of these characteristics cannot be justified on the basis of a country criterion. It is important that the authors understand that the purpose of the review is to describe the situation of the research in relation to the topics, not on the basis of the country.

Response: The selection of Chinese university students is due to the vulnerable health status of students as per the light of literature which claimed that students are depressed and most of them commit suicide. On the other hand, the Chinese government tries to promote physical health activities in the country. These were two main reasons for selecting the studies from China. Moreover, the international level study will fill the gap to provide some insights from the Asian aspect of how Chinese university students perform physical activities and the outcomes.

Comment 3: There are very important conceptual errors. For example, the authors say that Scopus is a peer review journal. Scopus is a database of indexed journals and is not a journal as they claim.. …Finally, SCOPUS is a peer-reviewed journal with lavish literature and more (line 119). Google Scholar is not a database. It is a repository that is neither adequate nor reliable for the selection of quality articles. Google Scholar collects all types of articles including articles that are not necessarily peer-reviewed.The keywords and the combination of booleans are not appropriate. I have tried to replicate the search and did not get the same results. This is a major problem in the study design. For example, this combination is wrong ("exercise" OR "physical activity" OR "physical fitness" OR "mental health" OR "physical health") Such a combination would be more appropriate:("exercise" OR "physical activity" OR "physical fitness") AND ("mental health" OR "physical health")Why did you use quotation marks when you only use one word?

Response: On the page 4 under the subheading section 2.3 Systematic Literature Exploring Scheme we make all the correction as per the advice of the reviewer.

Comment 4: The sections of the paper are presented out of order. For example, first, the eligibility criteria are indicated and then the results are described.

Response: As per the PRISMA guidelines which study adopted has the same order under the screening phase.

Comment 5: In general, the paper presents important weaknesses at the level of methodology and theoretical justification, the results have not been analyzed in-depth and the discussion and conclusions are neither relevant nor generalization.

Response: We mentioned more literature around the globe to show what is happening worldwide, such as European and Canada Switzerland studies we added to present the study's worth at the international level.

Reviewer 2 Report

The paper “A systematic review of the Impact of physical activity on cognitive and non-cognitive development in Chinese University students” deals with a very interesting and important topic. With the intention that you can make those improvements in your future research, I will comment on some of the most relevant weaknesses found in the different sections. I hope you find those comments useful.

The introduction should be divided into two parts - Introduction and Background. Please consider supplementing the literature with other important sources.

In the introduction, add a paragraph indicating the structure of the paper. Briefly explain what is in each section.

Strong justification is required for why this study is needed.

The Introduction section should have culminated with a set of hypotheses (or research questions) perfectly aligned with the subsequent empirical evidence obtained in the results section analysis.

Authors should discuss the results and how they can be interpreted from the perspective of previous studies and the working hypotheses. Conclusions should include precise, concise, and quantitative statements about the significance of the study, highlight any new findings, and explain how the work could be extended in the future. What are the implications of the research?

The reference index is not prepared according to the journal's guidelines

I hope the suggestions listed above can improve the research content.

Author Response

Cover Letter

January 4, 2023

Sustainability MDPI

Dear Editors and reviewers,

Reviewer 2 comments:

Comment 1: The introduction should be divided into two parts - Introduction and Background. Please consider supplementing the literature with other important sources.

Response: Per the advice, the introduction part is split into introduction and background.

Comment 2: In the introduction, add a paragraph indicating the structure of the paper. Briefly explain what is in each section.

Response: We admire the concern of the review; the study is explained thoroughly in section line 137-140.

Comment 3: Strong justification is required for why this study is needed.

Response: In the study background section, we outlined the study's justification.

Comment 4: Authors should discuss the results and how they can be interpreted from the perspective of previous studies and the working hypotheses. Conclusions should include precise, concise, and quantitative statements about the significance of the study, highlight any new findings, and explain how the work could be extended in the future. What are the implications of the research?I hope the suggestions listed above can improve the research content.

Response: As per the advice we precise the conclusion and add the significance and suggestions lines 340-354.

Comment 5:The Introduction section should have culminated with a set of hypotheses (or research questions) perfectly aligned with the subsequent empirical evidence obtained in the results section analysis.

Response: At the end of the Background section, we highlighted our study objective. Besides, in the Methodology part, as per the PRISMA guidelines, there is a separate section for the study research questions. Line 153 under the heading 2.2. Interpretation of research questions.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

I thank the authors for their efforts to improve the article.

Minor changes in the English language are recommended, and there are expressions that need to be improved.

Regards

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you for the constructive suggestion. The manuscript went through extensive language editing by a native professional editor. We look forward to your informative response.