Keeping Things Positive: Affect as a Mediator between Physical Activity and Psychological Functioning

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

(1).The article needs to address more clearly the novelty of the research. In addition, in the introduction section, I recommend to insert the structure of the article. Please explain, how the model / framework was developed, how is different theory used to derive variables in the model. Please also explain the novelty of this study.

(2).You need to go beyond describing a series of relevant references, and tell us how your interpretation of the literature shows the gaps that exist, and how the proposed approach to the literature brings about novel opportunities to reinterpret the literature that will allow an advancement in our understanding in the field. Additionally, more updated literature could have been used.

(3).In the final section, I think that it would be valuable to enlarge the discussion about the limits of this work, better discussing possible aspects to refine and deepen in future research.

(4)Finally, references list should be extensively checked and corrected in accordance with the journal's requirements. Many mistakes and missing data have been notified (see, Ref. 32, 46, 48, 49, 53, 54 and many others).

Author Response

We thank Reviewer #1 for the care devoted to this manuscript; suggestions and comments were such to helping us to improve the quality of the present revision.

Thank you once again. 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The research topic and focus is considered as less in novelty, however, I believe there were limited research focused on Iranian university studies, hence, it is acceptable. However, major issues are identified in the illustration of your background, and the consistency with the use of measurement. 

1. What's the purpose of focusing on positive and negative affect? 

- What's the definition of them? it can be trait and it can be states emotion affect, there's huge difference in term of cross-sectional research. 

- It is not enough to only show the previous literature on the relationship between your mentioned variables, because there's loads, please identify your significance in doing this cross-sectional research, particular in your population setting. 

2. Please define your psychological function (or you use psychological well-being) in the middle of your manuscript. 

- Why you use life satisfaction, physical health rating and avoiding drug measurement ? You haven't mentioned them in the literature part. Why avoiding substance use? Substance use can be a behaviour but not necessarily psychological well-being.  

3. What's the PA level or physical activity level in your population? 

- What's the main purpose of your research, what's your model or mediation relationship role in your future research? increase and promote PA? 

4. Why you need to do an EFA before an SEM? CFA is enough but i didn't see the results of the CFA of each measurement model? 

5. Why there's only 200 participants? its a huge limitation in doing SEM, it 's acceptable for path analysis, but not enough for SEM, what's the rule of thumb of your participants recruitment. As you have 60-items in your negative and positive affect item, its definitely not enough for this measurement model CFA, nor even an SEM mode. I have no idea how could you do a SEM with only 200 participants. 

6. I think the discussion is fairly good, but still strengthen your literature review, in order to be consistent with your discussion session. 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The Quality of English language is good enough 

Author Response

We thank Reviewer #2 for the care devoted to this manuscript; suggestions and comments were such to helping us to improve the quality of the present revision.

Thank you once again. 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The text has been thoroughly revised, incorporating the feedback provided by the reviewer. The authors have successfully addressed my comments and suggestions, enhancing both the quality and clarity of the manuscript. I am now in a position to recommend its acceptance.