Reviewer’s report
Title: 
An exploratory analysis of work engagement among women with and
without disordered eating
Version: 
1 
Date: 
18 May 2021
Reviewer: 
Michèle Dramaix-Wilmet
Reviewer's report:
This article deals with a very interesting topic and all of my comments have been
answered but now, the results are limited and some further analysis would
strengthen them and I have a few remarks left.
In my previous review, my first question was: why having chosen to compare
work engagement in women with and without disordered eating and not compare
disordered eating in women with low and high work engagement? 
I am not entirely convinced by the answer; even if it's clear that in a cross-
sectional study, it's not possible to know in which direction the association goes,
as the primary research interest lies within the field of eating disorders (cf. also
"background" p3. line 66-67), the analysis could compare eating disorders
according to workload.
Abstract
The abstract has been correctly modified but the shape of the distributions is
more a methodological aspect than a result and since non-parametric tests were
applied, this theoretically implies that the distributions of the scores are not
normal.
Methods
Previous comment (1st review): p. 6, UWES-9 and EDE-Q: what are the ranges
of these scores? 
The ranges of the scores in the sample are shown in table 2 but here in the
methodology, my question was about the theoretical ranges. For UWES, for
example, the range in the sample is 0-6 (table 2). Does this mean that the UWES
score is the mean of the 9 scores of the scale and how to interpret a mean of 3.9?
The questions are the same for EDE-Q scores.
Previous comment: p. 7, lines 156-7: Is the choice of the cut-off for EDE-Q usual
and found in the literature? Is the distribution of EDE-Q a normal (Gaussian)
one, or at least a symmetrical one? 
Since the distribution of EDE-Q not a normal one, the use of the standard
deviation to choose a cut-off is questionable; however the % of subjects above
1SD from the mean is not very far from that expected with a normal distribution
(16%). 
If the distribution had been strongly skewed, this choice of cut-off would
not be adequate.
Results
Only the association between education and work engagement was analyzed but
even if the literature doesn't show an association between work engagement and
marital status, it could be interesting to know if your study confirms or not this
result. I agree that the age range is narrow but was it not possible to compare for
example, the 26-30y and 31-36y groups? Why not analyze eating disorder
according the three available variables (education, marital status and age)? Was
the association between work engagement and eating disorders similar by
education level, marital status or age?
Discussion
Previous comment: A brief discussion on the values observed for UWES and
EDE-Q scores could prove useful for those who are not familiar with these
scores. Are these values similar to those found in other studies, in general or
specific populations? 
I only found an answer to my question with the t-test p10 lines 213-215 and
found no discussion of this result (see also comment above on the meaning of the
mean of the scores).
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
No
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?
No
Is the presentation of the work clear?
Yes
Are the images in this manuscript (including electrophoretic gels and blots) free
from apparent manipulation?
Yes