Relationships between Self-Talk, Inner Speech, Mind Wandering, Mindfulness, Self-Concept Clarity, and Self-Regulation in University Students
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe manuscript examines novel relationships between the self-related processes of self-talk , inner speech, self-concept clarity, mindfulness, mind wandering. Undoubtedly the topic discussed is of extreme interest and is part of a line of research that in recent years has been greatly broadening its perspective.
An important and strenght element of the paper is the rich bibliography and the general approach to the very difficult problem of self-representation, both from the point view of personality development and from the cognitive point of view.
In general, the manuscript is well done and there are no major methodological observations.
However, I would like to highlight some points:
· the research presented confirms what is already present in the literature on the topic. Replicating a study is a crucial aspect in experimental research and helps to give greater solidity to a hypothesis. In this study this aspect should be made more explicit in the introduction and in discussion sections.
· The experimental sample consists of university study. Given the topic of the research this could constituted an important limitation. The development of the self is a very long and complex process. A comparison with an adult population would have been necessary for a more detailed discussion of the data.
In my opinion, the manuscript can be accepted but I invite the authors to review the introduction (and consequently the conclusion) in light of the above observation
Author Response
See attached file.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThanks for allowing me to review the present manuscript. This is an interesting explorative and cross-sectional study on the explored relationships among various variables related to the self-construct. In the next paragraphs, a few suggestions, which might help to improve the quality of the manuscript, are shown:
Abstract
COMMENT 1. Page 1, lines 10-12. Specify the type of analysis you made (Pearson’s correlations) and the magnitude of the associations, either numerically or in text.
COMMENT 2. Page 1, lines 10-12. Give here more details about the sample, at least percentage of women and mean age and SD.
COMMENT 3. Page 1, lines 22-23. Improve this sentence, avoid the repetition of the word together: “This study pieces together what has been presented in the literature, bringing together variables that are typically studied in isolation.”
Introduction
COMMENT 4. Page 1, lines 31-33. The first sentence seems a personal opinion. Please, provide the studies that support your affirmation or delete it.
COMMENT 5. Page 1, line 33. Please, provide a definition of the self. A brief review of literature would be great.
COMMENT 6. Please, ensure that all ideas in the introduction section are cited.
COMMENT 7. Page 2, lines 63-64. Please, improve this sentence: “Indeed, a diverse group of researchers from around the world came together to perform an interdisciplinary review and construct a model,”. It is written in an inappropriate style for an academic paper.
Methods
COMMENT 8. Page 4, line 155. Put the sociodemographic information of the sample here.
COMMENT 9. Please, provide a data analysis section in which you specify the use of Pearson’s correlation and the guideline to interpret the magnitude of the associations.
COMMENT 10. Please, specify the procedure for sample recruitment.
Results.
COMMENT 11. Please, provide a description of the magnitude of the associations.
Discussion.
COMMENT 12. Please, discuss your results taking into account previous literature.
Author Response
See attached file.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThank you. I do not have more suggestions to do.
