Downloaded from http://rsos.royalsocietypublishing.org/ on June 17, 2017
Difference in contagious yawning between susceptible men
and women: why not?
Ivan Norscia, Elisa Demuru and Elisabetta Palagi
Article citation details
R. Soc. open sci. 3: 160477.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1098/rsos.160477
Review timeline
Original submission:
Revised submission:
Final acceptance:
6 July 2016
5 August 2016
7 August 2016
Note: Reports are unedited and appear as
submitted by the referee. The review history
appears in chronological order.
Review History
RSOS-160477.R0 (Original submission)
Review form: Reviewer 1
Is the manuscript scientifically sound in its present form?
Yes
Are the interpretations and conclusions justified by the results?
Yes
Is the language acceptable?
Yes
Is it clear how to access all supporting data?
Not applicable, a reply to a comment
Do you have any ethical concerns with this paper?
No
© 2016 The Authors. Published by the Royal Society under the terms of the Creative Commons
Attribution License http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/, which permits unrestricted use,
provided the original author and source are credited
Downloaded from http://rsos.royalsocietypublishing.org/ on June 17, 2017
2
Have you any concerns about statistical analyses in this paper?
No
Recommendation?
Accept with minor revision (please list in comments)
Comments to the Author(s)
General Comments: Content
I do not have much to suggest vis a vis content. It is challenging to read only one side of a
discussion, but as far as I can tell, the suggestions the authors make regarding the analysis (the
bulk of pages 2-4) seem appropriate. I cannot evaluate all of their claims, but they seem to be
reasonable points to present to the readers for consideration. There are only minor edits needed.
P2, ln 56/57: In the sentence, “In seven articles the individuals were aware of…” who are “the
individuals?” My assumption is the authors of the reply are referring to the authors of the
comment, but it’s not completely clear. They could also be referring to themselves in the third
person as the authors of the original article in question.
P 6 last sentence: I’m not a fan of rhetorical questions, but that is a stylistic choice. I understand
the point the authors are making. More importantly, there is no overall conclusion to the reply.
The authors should summarize their response in a civil couple of sentences.
General Comments: Tone
The authors (Norscia et al.) of this reply as well as those of the comment (Gallup & Massen)
should avoid inflammatory rhetoric that risks implying personal attacks. We are supposed to be
having a discussion of ideas, and thus we ought to keep the dialogue civil. This applies to both
the comment and the reply. I do not have access to the comment by Gallup & Massen, so I do not
know if there are issues in their tone or word choice. I encourage the editor to suggest changes to
the word choice of the comment, if and where needed. Even if there are problems with the tone of
the comment that go uncorrected, I would like the authors of the reply to take the moral high
ground, so to speak, and utilize a civil discourse. The issues I have in the word choice of the reply
are not extensive or egregious, but there are a few places where subtle changes can make a big
difference in how the reply may be interpreted by readers.
Specific lines relevant to this point:
P 2, first sentence: Remove the italics from the quoted passage, unless this is the formatting of the
reply by Gallup & Massen. May come across as derogatory.
P 3, ln 45/46: Remove the scare quotes around “free-ranging,” as again this can be misinterpreted
as derogatory, even though the authors are referring to a study by their group. Choose a
description that is accurate, even if wordier, that does not require scare quotes like this.
P 3, ln 54-57: This last sentence may be condescending. If the authors know full well that, having
reduced the meta-analysis to two articles, the power will not be there to conduct the analysis the
commentators performed on the original sample, then they should just say so. If the analysis
could be performed and may still show the effect the commentators found with the original
sample, then the authors should include a statement that the effect may indeed be there. Norscia
Downloaded from http://rsos.royalsocietypublishing.org/ on June 17, 2017
3
et al. can, with neutral affect, state that re-doing their calculations with the revised sample Gallup
& Massen may or may not find their original effect.
P 4, ln 43-45: Rather than “makes the results questionable” I suggest a revision to the tone of
limiting the interpretability of the results.
P 5, ln 7-25: This paragraph contains multiple wording decisions that may be interpreted as
antagonistic. I suggest a careful consideration of all the words emphasized in italics. I think that
the only one that aids clarity is ‘same’ in the parentheses in line 16. I think all others should be
normal typeface. That includes ‘different’ in the same line; having made the point with ‘same’,
italicizing ‘different’ is overkill. At the beginning of that sentence (ln 14) delete ‘very clearly’. In
line 12 change ‘never said’ to ‘did not state’. Delete the last sentence of the paragraph (A careful
reading…).
P 5, ln 32: Remove the scare quotes around restricted, and change the word if need be. I cannot
tell if the authors are quoting a source, disparaging the commentators, or making some other
point.
P 6, ln 21: Most importantly of all of these suggestions, remove and replace the word ‘attack’. No
one is being attacked here, or at least they shouldn’t be. Even if the tone of the comment warrants
this word choice, it is imperative that the authors of the reply respond with a strictly civil tone as
befitting a dispassionate, scientific discussion.
Review form: Reviewer 2 (Elizabeth Cirulli)
Is the manuscript scientifically sound in its present form?
Yes
Are the interpretations and conclusions justified by the results?
Yes
Is the language acceptable?
Yes
Is it clear how to access all supporting data?
Yes
Do you have any ethical concerns with this paper?
No
Have you any concerns about statistical analyses in this paper?
No
Recommendation?
Accept with minor revision (please list in comments)
Comments to the Author(s)
This reply presents its view in a clear and well-cited manner. I would only request that the
authors include the caveat that while sex played a statistically significant role in their paper, the
actual effect size of sex on the yawn response was quite small. It is important to clarify that
women who yawn in this setting only produce slightly more yawns than men.
Downloaded from http://rsos.royalsocietypublishing.org/ on June 17, 2017
4
I also wanted to indicate that my own data, where we collected a thousand people's yawn
responses to a three-minute video of people yawning, supports the claim made by the authors
that females who have a contagious yawn response yawn slightly more than men who have a
contagious yawn response. I would be happy to share my data with the authors if they would
find this useful, and they can contact me at [email protected].
Decision letter (RSOS-160477)
3rd August 2016
Dear Dr Palagi
On behalf of the Editors, I am pleased to inform you that your Manuscript RSOS-160477 entitled
"Difference in contagious yawning between susceptible men and women: why not?" has been
accepted for publication in Royal Society Open Science subject to minor revision in accordance
with the referee suggestions. Please find the referees' comments at the end of this email.
The reviewers and handling editors have recommended publication, but also suggest some minor
revisions to your manuscript. Therefore, I invite you to respond to the comments and revise your
manuscript.
• Ethics statement
If your study uses humans or animals please include details of the ethical approval received,
including the name of the committee that granted approval. For human studies please also detail
whether informed consent was obtained. For field studies on animals please include details of all
permissions, licences and/or approvals granted to carry out the fieldwork.
• Data accessibility
It is a condition of publication that all supporting data are made available either as
supplementary information or preferably in a suitable permanent repository. The data
accessibility section should state where the article's supporting data can be accessed. This section
should also include details, where possible of where to access other relevant research materials
such as statistical tools, protocols, software etc can be accessed. If the data has been deposited in
an external repository this section should list the database, accession number and link to the DOI
for all data from the article that has been made publicly available. Data sets that have been
deposited in an external repository and have a DOI should also be appropriately cited in the
manuscript and included in the reference list.
If you wish to submit your supporting data or code to Dryad (http://datadryad.org/), or modify
your current submission to dryad, please use the following link:
http://datadryad.org/submit?journalID=RSOS&manu=RSOS-160477
• Competing interests
Please declare any financial or non-financial competing interests, or state that you have no
competing interests.
• Authors’ contributions
All submissions, other than those with a single author, must include an Authors’ Contributions
section which individually lists the specific contribution of each author. The list of Authors
should meet all of the following criteria; 1) substantial contributions to conception and design, or
Downloaded from http://rsos.royalsocietypublishing.org/ on June 17, 2017
5
acquisition of data, or analysis and interpretation of data; 2) drafting the article or revising it
critically for important intellectual content; and 3) final approval of the version to be published.
All contributors who do not meet all of these criteria should be included in the
acknowledgements.
We suggest the following format:
AB carried out the molecular lab work, participated in data analysis, carried out sequence
alignments, participated in the design of the study and drafted the manuscript; CD carried out
the statistical analyses; EF collected field data; GH conceived of the study, designed the study,
coordinated the study and helped draft the manuscript. All authors gave final approval for
publication.
• Acknowledgements
Please acknowledge anyone who contributed to the study but did not meet the authorship
criteria.
• Funding statement
Please list the source of funding for each author.
Because the schedule for publication is very tight, it is a condition of publication that you submit
the revised version of your manuscript within 7 days (i.e. by the 10th August). If you do not think
you will be able to meet this date please let me know immediately.
To revise your manuscript, log into https://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/rsos and enter your
Author Centre, where you will find your manuscript title listed under "Manuscripts with
Decisions". Under "Actions," click on "Create a Revision." You will be unable to make your
revisions on the originally submitted version of the manuscript. Instead, revise your manuscript
and upload a new version through your Author Centre.
When submitting your revised manuscript, you will be able to respond to the comments made by
the referees and upload a file "Response to Referees" in "Section 6 - File Upload". You can use this
to document any changes you make to the original manuscript. In order to expedite the
processing of the revised manuscript, please be as specific as possible in your response to the
referees.
When uploading your revised files please make sure that you have:
1) A text file of the manuscript (tex, txt, rtf, docx or doc), references, tables (including captions)
and figure captions. Do not upload a PDF as your "Main Document".
2) A separate electronic file of each figure (EPS or print-quality PDF preferred (either format
should be produced directly from original creation package), or original software format)
3) Included a 100 word media summary of your paper when requested at submission. Please
ensure you have entered correct contact details (email, institution and telephone) in your user
account
4) Included the raw data to support the claims made in your paper. You can either include your
data as electronic supplementary material or upload to a repository and include the relevant doi
within your manuscript
5) Included your supplementary files in a format you are happy with (no line numbers,
vancouver referencing, track changes removed etc) as these files will NOT be edited in
production
Downloaded from http://rsos.royalsocietypublishing.org/ on June 17, 2017
6
Once again, thank you for submitting your manuscript to Royal Society Open Science and I look
forward to receiving your revision. If you have any questions at all, please do not hesitate to get
in touch.
Best wishes
Andrew Dunn
Senior Publishing Editor, Royal Society Open Science
on behalf of Essi Viding
Subject Editor, Royal Society Open Science
[email protected]
Reviewer comments to Author:
Reviewer: 1
Comments to the Author(s)
General Comments: Content
I do not have much to suggest vis a vis content. It is challenging to read only one side of a
discussion, but as far as I can tell, the suggestions the authors make regarding the analysis (the
bulk of pages 2-4) seem appropriate. I cannot evaluate all of their claims, but they seem to be
reasonable points to present to the readers for consideration. There are only minor edits needed.
P2, ln 56/57: In the sentence, “In seven articles the individuals were aware of…” who are “the
individuals?” My assumption is the authors of the reply are referring to the authors of the
comment, but it’s not completely clear. They could also be referring to themselves in the third
person as the authors of the original article in question.
P 6 last sentence: I’m not a fan of rhetorical questions, but that is a stylistic choice. I understand
the point the authors are making. More importantly, there is no overall conclusion to the reply.
The authors should summarize their response in a civil couple of sentences.
General Comments: Tone
The authors (Norscia et al.) of this reply as well as those of the comment (Gallup & Massen)
should avoid inflammatory rhetoric that risks implying personal attacks. We are supposed to be
having a discussion of ideas, and thus we ought to keep the dialogue civil. This applies to both
the comment and the reply. I do not have access to the comment by Gallup & Massen, so I do not
know if there are issues in their tone or word choice. I encourage the editor to suggest changes to
the word choice of the comment, if and where needed. Even if there are problems with the tone of
the comment that go uncorrected, I would like the authors of the reply to take the moral high
ground, so to speak, and utilize a civil discourse. The issues I have in the word choice of the reply
are not extensive or egregious, but there are a few places where subtle changes can make a big
difference in how the reply may be interpreted by readers.
Specific lines relevant to this point:
P 2, first sentence: Remove the italics from the quoted passage, unless this is the formatting of the
reply by Gallup & Massen. May come across as derogatory.
Downloaded from http://rsos.royalsocietypublishing.org/ on June 17, 2017
7
P 3, ln 45/46: Remove the scare quotes around “free-ranging,” as again this can be misinterpreted
as derogatory, even though the authors are referring to a study by their group. Choose a
description that is accurate, even if wordier, that does not require scare quotes like this.
P 3, ln 54-57: This last sentence may be condescending. If the authors know full well that, having
reduced the meta-analysis to two articles, the power will not be there to conduct the analysis the
commentators performed on the original sample, then they should just say so. If the analysis
could be performed and may still show the effect the commentators found with the original
sample, then the authors should include a statement that the effect may indeed be there. Norscia
et al. can, with neutral affect, state that re-doing their calculations with the revised sample Gallup
& Massen may or may not find their original effect.
P 4, ln 43-45: Rather than “makes the results questionable” I suggest a revision to the tone of
limiting the interpretability of the results.
P 5, ln 7-25: This paragraph contains multiple wording decisions that may be interpreted as
antagonistic. I suggest a careful consideration of all the words emphasized in italics. I think that
the only one that aids clarity is ‘same’ in the parentheses in line 16. I think all others should be
normal typeface. That includes ‘different’ in the same line; having made the point with ‘same’,
italicizing ‘different’ is overkill. At the beginning of that sentence (ln 14) delete ‘very clearly’. In
line 12 change ‘never said’ to ‘did not state’. Delete the last sentence of the paragraph (A careful
reading…).
P 5, ln 32: Remove the scare quotes around restricted, and change the word if need be. I cannot
tell if the authors are quoting a source, disparaging the commentators, or making some other
point.
P 6, ln 21: Most importantly of all of these suggestions, remove and replace the word ‘attack’. No
one is being attacked here, or at least they shouldn’t be. Even if the tone of the comment warrants
this word choice, it is imperative that the authors of the reply respond with a strictly civil tone as
befitting a dispassionate, scientific discussion.
Reviewer: 2
Comments to the Author(s)
This reply presents its view in a clear and well-cited manner. I would only request that the
authors include the caveat that while sex played a statistically significant role in their paper, the
actual effect size of sex on the yawn response was quite small. It is important to clarify that
women who yawn in this setting only produce slightly more yawns than men.
I also wanted to indicate that my own data, where we collected a thousand people's yawn
responses to a three-minute video of people yawning, supports the claim made by the authors
that females who have a contagious yawn response yawn slightly more than men who have a
contagious yawn response. I would be happy to share my data with the authors if they would
find this useful, and they can contact me at [email protected].
Author's Response to Decision Letter for (RSOS-160477)
See Appendix A.
Appendix A
Reviewer comments to Author:
Downloaded from http://rsos.royalsocietypublishing.org/ on June 17, 2017
Reviewer: 1
Comments to the Author(s)
General Comments: Content
I do not have much to suggest vis a vis content. It is challenging to read only one side of a discussion, but as
far as I can tell, the suggestions the authors make regarding the analysis (the bulk of pages 2-4) seem
appropriate. I cannot evaluate all of their claims, but they seem to be reasonable points to present to the
readers for consideration. There are only minor edits needed.
P2, ln 56/57: In the sentence, “In seven articles the individuals were aware of…” who are “the individuals?”
My assumption is the authors of the reply are referring to the authors of the comment, but it’s not completely
clear. They could also be referring to themselves in the third person as the authors of the original article in
question.
ANSWER: WE CLARIFIED THAT THE "INDIVIDUALS" WERE "THE EXPERIMENTAL
SUBJECTS"
P 6 last sentence: I’m not a fan of rhetorical questions, but that is a stylistic choice. I understand the point the
authors are making.
ANSWER: WE REMOVED THE RHETORICAL QUESTION AND RE-FORMULATED THE
SENTENCE.
More importantly, there is no overall conclusion to the reply. The authors should summarize their response
in a civil couple of sentences.
ANSWER: THE CONCLUSION HAS BEEN ADDED.
General Comments: Tone
The authors (Norscia et al.) of this reply as well as those of the comment (Gallup & Massen) should avoid
inflammatory rhetoric that risks implying personal attacks. We are supposed to be having a discussion of
ideas, and thus we ought to keep the dialogue civil. This applies to both the comment and the reply. I do not
have access to the comment by Gallup & Massen, so I do not know if there are issues in their tone or word
choice. I encourage the editor to suggest changes to the word choice of the comment, if and where needed.
Even if there are problems with the tone of the comment that go uncorrected, I would like the authors of the
reply to take the moral high ground, so to speak, and utilize a civil discourse. The issues I have in the word
choice of the reply are not extensive or egregious, but there are a few places where subtle changes can make
a big difference in how the reply may be interpreted by readers.
Specific lines relevant to this point:
P 2, first sentence: Remove the italics from the quoted passage, unless this is the formatting of the reply by
Gallup & Massen. May come across as derogatory.
ANSWER: IT HAS BEEN DONE
P 3, ln 45/46: Remove the scare quotes around “free-ranging,” as again this can be misinterpreted as
derogatory, even though the authors are referring to a study by their group. Choose a description that is
accurate, even if wordier, that does not require scare quotes like this.
ANSWER: WE REMOVED THE TERM
Downloaded from http://rsos.royalsocietypublishing.org/ on June 17, 2017
P 3, ln 54-57: This last sentence may be condescending. If the authors know full well that, having reduced
the meta-analysis to two articles, the power will not be there to conduct the analysis the commentators
performed on the original sample, then they should just say so. If the analysis could be performed and may
still show the effect the commentators found with the original sample, then the authors should include a
statement that the effect may indeed be there. Norscia et al. can, with neutral affect, state that re-doing their
calculations with the revised sample Gallup & Massen may or may not find their original effect.
ANSWER: IT HAS BEEN DONE
P 4, ln 43-45: Rather than “makes the results questionable” I suggest a revision to the tone of limiting the
interpretability of the results.
ANSWER: WE UNDERSTAND THE POINT ABOUT THE TONE, RAISED BY THE REVIEWER
AND SINCE THE BEGINNING WE TRIED, AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE, TO LOWER THE TONE
OF THE DISCUSSION. HOWEVER, GALLUP AND MASSEN IN THEIR COMMENTARY MAKE
SERIOUS AND SOMETIMES HARSH STATEMENTS, SUCH AS “THUS, THE RESULTS
REPORTED BY NORSCIA ET AL. ARE INCONCLUSIVE IF NOT MISLEADING.”
CONSIDERING ALL THAT, WE REPHRASED THE SENTENCE AS FOLLOWS: “THIS BIAS
RAISES SERIOUS CONCERNS ON HOW TO INTERPRET THE FINAL RESULTS.”
P 5, ln 7-25: This paragraph contains multiple wording decisions that may be interpreted as antagonistic. I
suggest a careful consideration of all the words emphasized in italics. I think that the only one that aids
clarity is ‘same’ in the parentheses in line 16. I think all others should be normal typeface. That includes
‘different’ in the same line; having made the point with ‘same’, italicizing ‘different’ is overkill.
ANSWER: IT HAS BEEN DONE
At the beginning of that sentence (ln 14) delete ‘very clearly’.
ANSWER: OK
In line 12 change ‘never said’ to ‘did not state’.
ANSWER: OK
Delete the last sentence of the paragraph (A careful reading…).
ANSWER: WE FOLLOWED THE SUGGESTION
P 5, ln 32: Remove the scare quotes around restricted, and change the word if need be. I cannot tell if the
authors are quoting a source, disparaging the commentators, or making some other point.
ANSWER: WE REPORTED EXACTLY WHAT HAS BEEN WRITTEN IN THE COMMENTARY
BY GALLUP & MASSEN, SO THE QUOTES ARE NECESSARY.
P 6, ln 21: Most importantly of all of these suggestions, remove and replace the word ‘attack’. No one is
being attacked here, or at least they shouldn’t be. Even if the tone of the comment warrants this word choice,
it is imperative that the authors of the reply respond with a strictly civil tone as befitting a dispassionate,
scientific discussion.
Downloaded from http://rsos.royalsocietypublishing.org/ on June 17, 2017
ANSWER: THE REVIEWER COULD NOT READ THE COMMENTARY SO WE UNDERSTAND
HIS POSSITION. WE CHANGED THE TERM INTO "CRITICIZE"
Reviewer: 2
Comments to the Author(s)
This reply presents its view in a clear and well-cited manner. I would only request that the authors include
the caveat that while sex played a statistically significant role in their paper, the actual effect size of sex on
the yawn response was quite small. It is important to clarify that women who yawn in this setting only
produce slightly more yawns than men.
ANSWER: THANK YOU, WE INCLUDED THIS CONCEPT IN OUR REPLY
I also wanted to indicate that my own data, where we collected a thousand people's yawn responses to a
three-minute video of people yawning, supports the claim made by the authors that females who have a
contagious yawn response yawn slightly more than men who have a contagious yawn response. I would be
happy to share my data with the authors if they would find this useful, and they can contact me at
[email protected].
ANSWER: THIS IS A FANTASTIC OPPORTUNITY. WE'LL SOON CONTACT YOU!