Personality Traits and Physical Activity: Insights from German University Students

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

I am sincerely grateful for the opportunity to review your meticulously prepared manuscript. The effects of physical activity on emotional health are extensive, and advancing our understanding in this area can greatly contribute to identifying optimal physical activity levels in terms of duration, intensity, frequency, and so on, for improved well-being. Your cross-sectional study, which examines physical activity levels and personality traits in a remarkably large sample of 4244 university students, holds great potential in the field. Although the data are self-reported without objective measurements, the substantial sample size and rigorous statistical analysis add significant value to the topic. It is hopeful that future studies will incorporate objective measures. Congratulations to the authors on this well-crafted manuscript. Having said that, I have some suggestions to enhance the article's quality, and I leave it to your discretion to consider these changes for inclusion in the subsequent version.

Introduction: The introduction is well-structured and presents ideas in a coherent manner, making it easy to follow. I have no further comments to add in this section.

Method: You have appropriately included a discussion of "potential confounding variables." Given the numerous factors that can influence both physical activity levels and emotional states, it is crucial to control for these variables, especially considering the substantial sample size. Well done.

However, I noticed that in line 208, the statement regarding the exclusion of cases with missing data for PA variables should be placed in the Participants section rather than the Method section. Additionally, could you please specify the total number of participants who took part in the study?

In line 235, where it is mentioned, "Additionally, various (mental) health variables were assessed," it would be beneficial to provide a more detailed explanation of which variables were evaluated.

The statistical analysis appears to be appropriate. While conducting an ANOVA for each dimension of the SRF or performing analyses according to IPAQ intensity could account for potential influencing variables, utilizing regression analysis seems suitable for your study.

Results: The presentation of the results is well-organized, and the analyses appear sound. However, I have some confusion regarding the "Range" column in Table 1. Could you please clarify what this column represents?

Discussion: Your discussion is thorough, presenting the results in the context of existing studies that support and contradict your findings. Moreover, your cautious approach when discussing the applicability of certain results to future studies and designing effective physical activity plans for both active and sedentary individuals (limited to university students due to the study's sample, but potentially generalizable to a broader age group) is commendable. Overall, the discussion is easy to follow and well-structured. Excellent work, and congratulations on this achievement.

An aspect that strengthens your study significantly is the large sample size. I suggest that when referencing other studies in your discussion, you also include the number of participants in those studies. For instance, in line 409, when citing reference [59] or the [34] mentioned at the end of the paragraph, providing the sample size for each study can provide valuable context.

Regarding the citation of Howard et al. in line 420, please remember to include the publication year. The same applies to the citation of Toleo et al. in line 449.

Once again, I commend you on the quality of your manuscript. I believe that addressing these minor revisions will enhance the article's impact and strengthen its contribution to the scientific community.

Author Response

Please see the attachment - thank you.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors are to be congratulated for the study that has been planned and carried out.

The hypotheses and objectives put forward are interesting and novel. They are well supported by the theoretical introduction. The methodology is well thought out, with good instruments and adequate and clearly presented analyses. The discussion is well-founded and uses a large number of references taken into account in the introduction. It is recommended that the section on conclusions be improved to make them clearer to the reader.

Author Response

Please see the attachment - thank you.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx