Reviewer’s report
Title: 
An exploratory analysis of work engagement among women with and
without disordered eating
Version: 
0 
Date: 
22 Jan 2021
Reviewer: 
Elizabeth Anderson
Reviewer's report:
Abstract: Methods description is incomplete. The regression should be described
here rather than mentioned for the first time in the results.
Line 32-35: If work engagement is the opposite of burnout, then is this really a
new association, or just a re-framing or reverse of the association between
unhealthy eating and burnout? I'd reconsider the phrasing here to focus on the
re-framing, as appears in the background and discussion sections (especially in
lines 214-215). Then adjust the wording throughout.
Line 156: What was the range of scores, and what was the numeric cutoff for the
DE group?
Line 168: This is the first time the "married or cohabitating" variable is
mentioned. Were there other demographic variables considered? Was marriage
included in either regression model? Curious why it appears here but isn't
otherwise mentioned.
Table 1: Is there a reason "särbo" isn't translated? 
Line 181-182: "to assess whether the differences between two groups' UWES
scores" - whether the differences are significant? (possibly just a small typo)
Line 183-184: the effect size is determined to be moderate - what does that
mean? Please include a citation for determining cutoffs for Cohen's d.
Line 194: It would help me to see these two regression models written out. 
Table 3: Why was education the only predictor that was adjusted for? What
about type of work, income level, stress at work, or any other factors? Perhaps a
justification in the introduction for the focus on education would correct this.
Line 202: "As the workplace is one of the locations where most adults spend
much of their time" (not a majority as currently written)
Line 226-228: Were these suggestive of causality? 
Line 229: Education did attenuate the association, just slightly. Still unclear why
you controlled for education if the extant literature also does not show
significant confounding.
Line 246-249: Not sure the discussion of shift work is necessary or relevant. This
study did not focus on or subdivide based on occupation or job type and it is
therefore not appropriate to make inferences about the effect of shift work.
Line 259: This interpretation of the effect of education does not logically follow
the attribution to selection bias (i.e., controlling for education does not mean that
women who participated in the survey are fundamentally different from women
who did not participate). Please revise this explanation.
Publons Reviewer Recognition
. Springer Nature can send verification of this
review directly to Publons (a subsidiary of Clarivate Analytics). If you would
like to take advantage of this service, please click on the “Yes” option below.
Your name, email address, title of the reviewed manuscript, name of the journal,
and date of your review submission (the “Review Data”) will then be transmitted
to Publons after the final decision on the manuscript has been made. If you have
already registered at Publons, they will notify you of the receipt of this review
and update your profile 
as per your settings and their policy. If you are not
registered with Publons, you will receive an email from them asking you to
register in order for them to be able to recognize your review on your new
profile page. Publons may use the Review Data to generate derivative metadata
for the benefit of Publons and you as a reviewer, carefully considering the
sensitivity of such information. For example, Publons may verify your record as
a reviewer by updating your profile published on its webservice if you have
registered for such service or help editors to identify candidate reviewers. Please
find the details of processing in Publons’ privacy policy
https://publons.com/about/terms
Yes
Declaration of competing interests
Please complete a declaration of competing
interests, considering the following questions:
1
. 
Have you in the past five years received reimbursements, fees, funding, or
salary from an organisation that may in any way gain or lose financially
from the publication of this manuscript, either now or in the future?
2
. 
Do you hold any stocks or shares in an organisation that may in any way
gain or lose financially from the publication of this manuscript, either now
or in the future?
3
. 
Do you hold or are you currently applying for any patents relating to the
content of the manuscript?
4
. 
Have you received reimbursements, fees, funding, or salary from an
organization that holds or has applied for patents relating to the content of
the manuscript?
5
. 
Do you have any other financial competing interests?
6
. 
Do you have any non-financial competing interests in relation to this
paper?
If you can answer no to all of the above, write 'I declare that I have no competing
interests' below. If your reply is yes to any, please give details below.
'I declare that I have no competing interests
Reviewer Publication Consent.
 I agree for my report to be made available
under an Open Access Creative Commons CC-BY License (
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0
) if this manuscript is accepted for
publication. Any comments that I do not wish to be included in the published
report have been included as confidential comments to the editor, which will not
be published.
If you are not happy for us to publish this report, please contact the
editorial office before completing the review.
If you wish, you can include your
name in your published report. Please note you must decide whether to include
your name at the start of the process and confirm this decision whenever
prompted. If you change your decision later, we will not be able to publish your
name.
I agree to the terms of the CC-BY 4.0 license; please publish my name with my
report.
Is the study design appropriate to answer the research question (including the use
of appropriate controls), and are the conclusions supported by the evidence
presented?
Yes
Are the methods sufficiently described to allow the study to be repeated?
Yes
Is the use of statistics and treatment of uncertainties appropriate?
Yes
Is the presentation of the work clear?
No
Are the images in this manuscript (including electrophoretic gels and blots) free
from apparent manipulation?
Yes