Leisure Styles in Adults: Changes Throughout the COVID-19 Pandemic

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for allowing me the opportunity to review this manuscript. Based on my reading of this research there are some areas to consider improving in order to strengthen this manuscript.

The major parts to address are citations, statistics and discussion alignment, and relevance to advancing this scholarship. In reviewing the citations there were only a few leisure studies citations which suggest there are more citations that could strengthen the author's argument. Since this manuscript is being submitted to a sociology journal without exploring more literature in the leisure studies journal the results many not be as novel.

As well, the statistics do not align with the results from my interpretation. The results highlight that intellectual and virutal activities had the most significant change increase but there is less discussion about activities that stayed similar. Also, the data was collected from 2023 but participants were supposed to recall what they were doing in 2019. Since this is supposed to be an exploratory study it is okay to be more descriptive but the way the study was communicated there was generalizable language.

If the author took a confirmatory approach with scholarship that similarly saw results to other authors. Then this would strengthen this manuscript. 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

There are several typos (ex. Single in the stats chart is misspelled; interllectuals stats have typos) suggesting that the authors need to review this manuscript more closely to catch current and other errors.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

We sincerely thank you for the valuable contributions you provided, which were fundamental in improving the quality of the manuscript. All suggestions were carefully reviewed and incorporated, with the aim of meeting the expectations and standards required for publication. Below, we detail the improvements made:

Writing Style:

Following the suggestions, we carefully revised the manuscript's writing style, paying special attention to clarity and scientific precision. One of the authors, a native English speaker, collaborated in refining the text, ensuring fluid communication aligned with international academic standards. The revisions focused on adopting a more descriptive and exploratory approach while maintaining the study's original rigor and objectives.

Statistical Results:

After a detailed review, statistical results were corrected, standardized to two decimal places, and aligned with the conducted analyses. The interpretation was adjusted to ensure coherence between the presented data and the developed discussions.

Citations and References:

All citations and references were thoroughly reviewed and adjusted to strengthen the arguments presented. We emphasize that a significant portion of the references used comes from journals specialized in leisure studies, both in the Brazilian and international contexts. Examples include Licere, Journal of Leisure Research, World Leisure Journal, International Leisure Review, and Leisure Sciences. These revisions ensure that the manuscript is anchored in a solid and relevant theoretical foundation within the field of leisure studies.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This study contributes to the leisure studies literature on the response to the Covid pandemic. It has an adequate sample of respondents, and the discussion is relevant. I may have misunderstood the interpretation and analysis of the data, but I do not follow how some of the results reported are thought to be statistically significant. As I see it, this is a fundamental problem. The literature that has been cited also presents some major access concerns – these may be issues that have arisen in the drafting of the manuscript. They do, however, require attention.

More specifically, see below.

Abstract

12-14 The reported p values for the differences that are described as significant do not indicate statistical significance (ie. p ≤ 0.05.)

Keywords

·       18 It seems unusual that leisure is not one of the keywords

·       It would have been useful to cite the EPL construct validity and internal consistency article (DOI: 10.1590/1413-81232018232.11492016)

·       The EPL relies on retrospective. reporting of historical leisure participation – an explanatory caveat noting this as a potential limitation would be useful.

·       90  'Always' - what does this mean?

·       97  I assume the name of the ethics committee has been redacted for the purposes of blind review. I would expect it to be included in any published output.

·       Where was this study conducted?

·       Table I might usefully indicate age distribution

·       102  The sample of 175 + 123 does not equal n=300 as indicated in the abstract.

·       107  The results are reported to be statistically significant with a p value of 0.073. This is greater than an α value of 0.05, and therefore not normally considered statistically significant.

·       112-113  As above. These results are not statistically significant.

·       There is no indication of what statistical test(s) was(were) used.

·       It would help the overall coherence of the paper if the specific relevance of 187-201 was more explicit.

·       309  As above. This result is not statistically significant.

·       Typographic errors. Table 1 – ‘single’

There are several inaccuracies in the References. The following are cited in the text but not listed:

·       Bae and Chang, 2023

·       Bone et al. 2023

·       Bravo et al. 2021

·       Montenegro et al. 2020

·       Morse et al. 2021

·       Moyer 2007

·       Neca and Rechia, 2021

·       Rutkowski et al 2024

·       Stoppa and Isayama, 2017

Which of the two Wilke et al. 2021 references applies?

Others are listed but not cited in the text:

·       Ding, D., Del Pozo Cruz, B., Green, M. A., & Bauman, A. (2021)

·       Havitz, M. E., Kono, S., & Dimanche, F. (2021)

·       Marques, M., & Giolo, F. (2020)

·       World Leisure Organization (2022)

Bendikova references and McKenzie at al. (2021) are not listed in alphabetical order.

The two Bird et al. (2021) references need to be listed in alphabetical order and to be differentiated (2021a, 2021b).

The DOI references for the following are inaccurate, I can also find no trace of the following  articles – they are not as listed:

·       Andrade et al (2018)

·       Barre et al. (2020)

·       Batista et al. (2022)

·       Bird et al. (2021) in Health & Place – the listed DOI is linked to an entirely different article

·       Bird et al. (2021) should be cited as Solomon-Moore, E., Lambert, J., Grey, E. et al. Life in lockdown: a longitudinal study investigating the impact of the UK COVID-19 lockdown measures on lifestyle behaviours and mental health. BMC Public Health 22, 1495 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-022-13888-1

·       Clemente & Stoppa (2020)

·       Deshpande (2022) – this author is not found in the journal’s search engine, an out put in 2022 would feature in volume 63

·       Ding et al. (2021) – the DOI is linked to an entirely different article

·       Havitz et al. (2021) – this article is not in 63(4), or on pp.293-305 of 63(3), the first author is not found in the journal’s search engine

·       Hidalgo-Andrade et al. (2021) - the DOI is linked to an entirely different article

·       Holanda et al. (2020) – this article is not in 31(3)

·       Maciel et al. 2023) – I can find no record of an article with this title

·       Mackenzie & Goodnow (2021) - this article is not in 21(4)

·       Marques & Giolo (2020) - this article is not in 23(6), though there is a series of Covid-related articles in it – the second author is not found in the journal’s search engine

·       Miranda (2020) – this article is not in 39(5) and the author is not found in the journal’s search engine

·       Silva et al. (2020)

·       Sivan (2020) – this article is not in 39(5) and the title is not found in the journal’s search engine

·       Teodoro & Almeida (2020)

·       Wilke et al. (2021) in 18(8) - the DOI is linked to an entirely different article

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

We sincerely thank you for the valuable contributions which were fundamental to improving this manuscript. All suggestions were carefully reviewed and incorporated.

Writing Style

Following the suggestions, we carefully revised the manuscript's writing style, paying special attention to clarity and scientific precision. In the "Introduction" section, we incorporated additional information to more precisely articulate the study's proposal while preserving the original content's core essence. One of the authors, a native English speaker, collaborated in refining the text, ensuring fluid communication aligned with international academic standards. 

Materials and Methods

We comprehensively incorporated all requested information, including details about the statistical method, research location, university ethics committee name, and a detailed description of the research instrument.

Results

Was restructured to improve readability and interpretation. We adjusted paragraph structures, added new information, and corrected statistical result errors to ensure greater consistency with the conducted analyses.

Conclusion

We addressed the presented considerations while maintaining the original information's core essence.

Regarding citations and references, we conducted a careful review, correcting and adjusting all the adopted information. However, we found that the journal page and DOI link for the reference "Maciel, M. G., Uvinha, R. R., Gutiérrez, L.A.A., & Ortuzar, A. M. (2023). Leisure Styles: Understanding the Transformations of the Past Five Decades. International Leisure Review. 12(1): 41-60. https://doi.org/10.6278/ILR.202306_12(1).003." are not functioning. As an alternative, we have attached a PDF copy of the journal containing the published article to ensure the integrity and accessibility of the original source.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

My comments from the review of the first version of the manuscript have been acted upon in full.