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.
I'm pleased to accept this revised version of the manuscript.
Please carefully edit the paper again.
None
None
None
Thank you for your revision. Only one minor error need to be addressed.
1. "In order to strategy more suitable campus-based coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) " . "Strategy" is a noun rather than verb.
See my comments as below.
See my comments as below.
See my comments as below.
The manuscript has been substantially improved. However, I still found several language problems in this version, and listed some as below. Please check and re-edit the paper all throughout
1. Title should be added "China".
2. Abstract. Line 12, "strategy" is not a verb which can not be used in this way. Line 19-20, the two sentences are problematic. Line 21, SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19 virus are duplicated, which one the authors prefer?
3. Line 54, what is GBA?
Please consider reviewers' comments and revise the paper accordingly.
[# PeerJ Staff Note: Please ensure that all review comments are addressed in a response 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 response 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 response letter. Directions on how to prepare a response letter can be found at: https://peerj.com/benefits/academic-rebuttal-letters/ #]
[# PeerJ Staff Note: The review process has identified that the English language must be improved. PeerJ can provide language editing services - please contact us at [email protected] for pricing (be sure to provide your manuscript number and title) #]
None
None
None
This is a survey regarding to COVID-19 preventive knowledge, which aimed to compared COVID-19 preventive knowledge of undergraduates between Macao and Zhuhai. Though this is an interesting study, I have some comments for the authors for their consideration.
1. The language of this manuscript need to be improved.
2. Line 17-18. Please refine the conclusion. The initial conclusion is not accurate.
3. Line 38, 48. Please re-check the format of the citation.
4. For the COVID-19 preventive knowledge inventory, please add the information about psychometric properties.
5. Line 92, authors should calculate the response rate.
6. Line 86, please specifically describe the covariates.
7. Please use “<0.001”to replace “0.000”.
8. why did you use cut-off of 20 in the age? Please provide the reasons.
9. Table 4. For the footnote, please use “female” rather than “Feale”
10. Major status is a good index. Hence, authors should further study the difference between medical students and non-medical student.
11. Only three covariates were presented, do you have any more socio-demographics?
12. Authors did not compare the difference of the findings in between previous studies and this study in the discussion. Please add them.
1. English language of the paper is not so good. Please have it polished by English-speaking specialists after the revisions, including punctuations. For example, line 5-6, “difference” and “different” seem to be repeated. Line 17 “the certain points of” is an unclear term.
2. Line 38 and line 48, please check the reference “MOE-China” and “DSEDJ-Macao” represent what?
3. Introduction. This part is written well. I think the authors may consider to emphasize the interplay of COVID-19 infection because the two cities are bordering and university students can visit each other very conveniently. I remember the two cities opened to each other since August 2020. In this context, investigating COVID-19 knowledge of the two cities has important public health significance.
4. Line 54, please add title “Methods”.
5. Line 65, please provide the full form of “MUST”.
6. The authors dichotomized age at 20 years, please specify why.
7. Are there any i8nternational students participated in the survey, in particular Macau, an international city. The authors may consider to describe the inclusion and exclusion criteria.
8. In discussion part, the authors mentioned peer health education for implications, but this would result in high risk of COVID-19 transmission.
1. English language of the paper is not so good. Please have it polished by English-speaking specialists after the revisions, including punctuations. For example, line 5-6, “difference” and “different” seem to be repeated. Line 17 “the certain points of” is an unclear term.
2. Line 38 and line 48, please check the reference “MOE-China” and “DSEDJ-Macao” represent what?
3. Introduction. This part is written well. I think the authors may consider to emphasize the interplay of COVID-19 infection because the two cities are bordering and university students can visit each other very conveniently. I remember the two cities opened to each other since August 2020. In this context, investigating COVID-19 knowledge of the two cities has important public health significance.
4. Line 54, please add title “Methods”.
5. Line 65, please provide the full form of “MUST”.
6. The authors dichotomized age at 20 years, please specify why.
7. Are there any i8nternational students participated in the survey, in particular Macau, an international city. The authors may consider to describe the inclusion and exclusion criteria.
8. In discussion part, the authors mentioned peer health education for implications, but this would result in high risk of COVID-19 transmission.
1. English language of the paper is not so good. Please have it polished by English-speaking specialists after the revisions, including punctuations. For example, line 5-6, “difference” and “different” seem to be repeated. Line 17 “the certain points of” is an unclear term.
2. Line 38 and line 48, please check the reference “MOE-China” and “DSEDJ-Macao” represent what?
3. Introduction. This part is written well. I think the authors may consider to emphasize the interplay of COVID-19 infection because the two cities are bordering and university students can visit each other very conveniently. I remember the two cities opened to each other since August 2020. In this context, investigating COVID-19 knowledge of the two cities has important public health significance.
4. Line 54, please add title “Methods”.
5. Line 65, please provide the full form of “MUST”.
6. The authors dichotomized age at 20 years, please specify why.
7. Are there any i8nternational students participated in the survey, in particular Macau, an international city. The authors may consider to describe the inclusion and exclusion criteria.
8. In discussion part, the authors mentioned peer health education for implications, but this would result in high risk of COVID-19 transmission.
1. English language of the paper is not so good. Please have it polished by English-speaking specialists after the revisions, including punctuations. For example, line 5-6, “difference” and “different” seem to be repeated. Line 17 “the certain points of” is an unclear term.
2. Line 38 and line 48, please check the reference “MOE-China” and “DSEDJ-Macao” represent what?
3. Introduction. This part is written well. I think the authors may consider to emphasize the interplay of COVID-19 infection because the two cities are bordering and university students can visit each other very conveniently. I remember the two cities opened to each other since August 2020. In this context, investigating COVID-19 knowledge of the two cities has important public health significance.
4. Line 54, please add title “Methods”.
5. Line 65, please provide the full form of “MUST”.
6. The authors dichotomized age at 20 years, please specify why.
7. Are there any i8nternational students participated in the survey, in particular Macau, an international city. The authors may consider to describe the inclusion and exclusion criteria.
8. In discussion part, the authors mentioned peer health education for implications, but this would result in high risk of COVID-19 transmission.
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.