All reviews of published articles are made public. This includes manuscript files, peer review comments, author rebuttals and revised materials. Note: This was optional for articles submitted before 13 February 2023.
Peer reviewers are encouraged (but not required) to provide their names to the authors when submitting their peer review. If they agree to provide their name, then their personal profile page will reflect a public acknowledgment that they performed a review (even if the article is rejected). If the article is accepted, then reviewers who provided their name will be associated with the article itself.
Dear Dr. Palazón-Bru,
Thank you for your comprehensive revision. I am pleased to inform that your manuscript is accepted for publication in PeerJ.
[# PeerJ Staff Note - this decision was reviewed and approved by Claire Fletcher-Flinn, a PeerJ Section Editor covering this Section #]
Excellent, all my previous concerns have been addressed
Excellent, all my previous concerns have been addressed
Excellent, all my previous concerns have been addressed
The authors have done an admirable job of addressing the points raised in the reviews; the paper will make a nice contribution to the literature.
The authors have done an admirable job of addressing the points raised in the reviews; the paper will make a nice contribution to the literature.
The authors have done an admirable job of addressing the points raised in the reviews; the paper will make a nice contribution to the literature.
The authors have done an admirable job of addressing the points raised in the reviews; the paper will make a nice contribution to the literature.
Dear Dr. Palazón-Bru,
Please see attached for suggested changes and reviewer comments.
[# PeerJ Staff Note: Please ensure that all review comments are addressed in a rebuttal letter and any edits or clarifications mentioned in the letter are also inserted into the revised manuscript where appropriate. It is a common mistake to address reviewer questions in the rebuttal letter but not in the revised manuscript. If a reviewer raised a question then your readers will probably have the same question so you should ensure that the manuscript can stand alone without the rebuttal letter. Directions on how to prepare a rebuttal letter can be found at: https://peerj.com/benefits/academic-rebuttal-letters/ #]
1. In table 3, BPD is spelt wrongly as BDP.
2. It is unclear in Table 2 what the numbers in brackets are e.g. 31 (6). I understand that 31 is the number of people in a group. What does the (6) mean?
1. Throughout the tables 1 and 2, where there are omnibus p values that are significant when comparing the three groups, it would be important for the authors to analyse which of the paired comparisons between two groups are significant. This can be achieved by post-hoc tests e.g. Bonferroni correction after the chi-squared and ANOVA testing.
For example, for any given comparison where the omnibus p value is <0.05: is the significant difference between controls and relatives? Is the significant difference between relatives and BPD patients? Is the significant difference between controls and BPD patients? This would more clearly answer the study question, about whether relatives are more "similar" to controls or more "similar" to BPD patients.
1. Similarly, the results section of the text should be re-written to always focus on the results of the relatives when compared to controls, and also when compared to BPD patients.
Comparisons focusing on the BPD patients, comparing them with controls, are not novel and not as relevant to the overall aim of the study.
For example, "relatives showed statistically similar scores in the MASC to BPD patients. Both relatives and BPD patients scored more poorly than controls".
For example: "On the family relationships subscale of the SFS, the relatives scored better than BPD patients (p value xxx). However, the relatives scored worse than the controls (p value xxx)."
For example " On the SFS subscales of social engagement/withdrawal, interpersonal behavior, independence-competence, and prosocial
activities, plus the full scale and the categorization, there were no statistically significant differences between relatives and controls. However, relatives scored better than BPD patients".
2. Similarly, it would be important in Table 3 to change the structure: have the relatives scores "set" at 0, and then present the coefficients of controls compared to relatives, then present the coefficients of BPD patients compared to relatives. Currently, looking at Table 3, it is not possible to compare relatives with BPD patients which would be of much more clinical interest than comparing controls with BPD patients.
Well written, appropriate referencing.
Novel study, with research question well defined and explained, and the rationale appropriately determined and cited.
Ethical approval was provided, but no English translation was available, so this could not be evaluated.
Methods well described. Recruiting both parents and children of people with BPD caused issues with matching samples, and demographic group differences, However this is acceptable given the nature of the research and is addressed in the limitations. Measures and their selection, as well statistical analysis techniques were described in detail and easy to understand.
Limitations are well covered. No research is perfect, and does not need to be, and thorough addressing of limitations is key for transparency. The research group does this well.
Conclusions are clear and appropriate, and further research paths are suggested.
The manuscript reports the results of solid study carried out a sound methodology and investigating a novel and important question: do the close relatives of individuals with BPD exhibit any signs of the difficulties in social cognition and interaction which are characteristic of individuals with BPD. This is relevant to attempts to better understand the aetiology, and hence also the treatment, of BPD. In addition, they report evidence of social-cognitive impairments in the BPD group which are consistent with previous research and thus contribute to firming up those previous findings.
One issue which may merit mentioning is that people with BPD do not always exhibit the same symptoms but, rather fluctuate between extremes and indeed also often exhibit no symptoms. This means that the results of the tests could depend on what phase they happen to be in during testing. One way to try to address this would be to attempt to trigger their symptoms, or to wait until they exhibit symptoms in order to test them.
The authors state that the study has been carried out in accordance with the latest version of the Declaration of Helsinki, yet there is no information about the pre-registration. Please clarify.
Confidence Intervals for the ANOVAs do not appear in the table; perhaps add them?
It is not straightforward that any potential impairments in interpersonal functioning of family members should be interpreted as evidence of a genetic component. A plausible alternative interpretation would be that living with a person with BPD can lead to such impairments — in particular among the children of individuals with BPD. This should be noted as a limitation.
All text and materials provided via this peer-review history page are made available under a Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.