Is Consumption of Ginger in Daily Life Associated with Sexual Response?

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report (Previous Reviewer 1)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript titled “Is consumption of ginger in daily life associated with sexual behavior?” is interesting and well-written. It has been improved after the previous review and I believe, it is almost ready for publication.

I have only two technical comments.

Line 46. In scientific literature, we can write either de Jong et al. or de Jong and colleagues without “his”. Please correct. Also, please check references because reference 13 is not de Jong.

Line 298. In the text, figures should be referred to as e.g. Figure 1. Consult the journal template, please.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report (Previous Reviewer 2)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The revisions made by the authors could not adequately explain the reviewer's previous concerns, especially regarding the accuracy of the quantity of ginger related substances ingested, which would affect the results of the study.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for inviting me to review the manuscript titled “Is consumption of ginger in daily life associated with sexual behavior?”. The study is interesting with a large study population. The advantage is that now many people want to use some herbal additions and healthy food to maintain good health and longevity. However, many of them are not aware of the impact of nutritional components on overall health. Since the results are interesting, I think the manuscript is worthy of publication. Furthermore, the manuscript is well-structured and well-written. However, some additional clarifications should be considered before publication.

 

An abstract is not very informative. Can you kindly add some more results?

The age of the studied sample is relatively low. Can you kindly explain how was the survey advertised and how were the participants invited to the study? The age of the studied population and the way the answers were collected could bias the results. For example, by using online platforms, you could collect answers from the younger and more educated part of society. Please, include these considerations in the limitations of the study.

Line 70. The phrase “non-human animals” sounds confusing. It should be either experimental animal models or non-human studies. Please correct.

Lines 224-226. Can you please double-check this sentence? Was it intended here?

Results for FFQ, SDQ, DASA questionnaires should be presented in tabular form. It is important particularly for ginger as it is the primary interest of this study. Please also provide information on what period of time was assessed in the questionnaires. Food questionnaires usually assess the past 12 months. Was this timeframe the same for the other questionnaires?

Comments on the Quality of English Language

There are a few errors to correct. Authors should double-check the manuscript.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The study proposed a very interesting research model, but the biggest problem is that the statistics of Z intake cannot be accurate and standardized, which will directly affect the reliability of the results. In addition, there is a lack of direct evidence between Z and the inhibition of sexual aversion, and more theoretical and experimental support is needed.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors provide an examination on the potential effect of Ginger consumption on the sexual function, demonstrating a mediating effect of sexual desire and sexual arousal between the association of Ginger consumption and sexual behaviors. Whereas the authors do a good job introducing their findings, there are several minor details to address to clarify a few aspects I believe are necessary (see specific comments).

Beyond these specific comments, there is one serious methodological shortcoming in the manuscript. The authors do not present an analysis of the mediation analysis assumptions. As it is exemplified through a citation, this is sadly a common mistake presenting this analysis, with serious consequences that do not allow to accurately assess the quality and veracity of the results found.

If the authors want to publish these results in a responsible manner, here or elsewhere, they are required to provide a detailed analysis on the mediation assumption on their study variables.

 

SPECIFIC COMMENTS

ABSTRACT

Line 9 = missing a comma after “complain”
Line 10. The jump between sentences is abrupt and makes no connection between their contents. Authors need an additional sentence there (i.e., a problematization related to ginger, perhaps).
Line 11 = missing a comma after “behavior”
Line 15 = missing a comma after “behavior”
Line 17 = missing a comma after “behavior”
Line 18 = could use a different word instead of “suggest”
Line 19 = It is too bold to even suggest ginger can be used as treatment. Authors should restrict to what their results can suggest.

 

INTRODUCTION

The jump from sexual from sexual dysfunction into disgust is astronomical, completely unjustified. Paragraphs should follow one another. Furthermore, whereas several pain-related conditions like vaginismus also experience sexual dysfunction, the authors study has nothing to do with disgust, nor it measures it. This paragraph should be relocated, since the connection with disgust and ginger is only made clear several paragraphs ahead.

Line 66 = wrong citation style used
Line 84 = what do authors mean by “completed sexual body fluids”?
Line 91 = it is quite irresponsible to cite 2/3 papers on flies and say that ginger enhance “rat's erectile function”.
Line 92 = ONE OF THE WAYS in which Z impact…
Line 95 = wrong citation style used
Line 109 = It is unclear as to which sexual behaviors the author refer when saying “these”.

It is not made clear how the present study is an improvement or different from the Shabanian et al., 2018, Stein et al., 2018.

METHOD

Line 122 = There is no justification given to remove the one intersex person from the study.
Line 131 = how was general health measured?
Line 131 = What is good “monthly income” for? It is mentioned twice and never again. Plus, ginger is not an expensive good, to justify this measure being included.
Line 139 = the authors should either provide a validation study in the population studied for the SDQ, or provide validation analyses as supplementary material. Same for the DASA scale.
Line 194 = I believe moderate to high correlations should be mentioned

There is no analysis or rationale addressing any of a mediation analysis assumption. This is a serious methodological flaw in the design and procedure that compromise the results of this study (see https://www.annualreviews.org/doi/10.1146/annurev-publhealth-032315-021402; https://academic.oup.com/epirev/article/43/1/48/6373830)

RESULTS

The text and lines in Figure 1 are oddly and unjustifiably bold

 

DISCUSSION

If the authors want to discuss pathways—which they do—they are expected to discuss the also potential biochemical pathway in which Ginger could enhance the sexual response, and not only at the hormonal level. Neural pathways as to how the sexual response work can be found in Pfaus 2009 pathways of sexual desire.

Another limitation that authors should acknowledge is the lack of measuring the quantity of ginger consumed.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

None beside the ones given directly.