Review History

To increase transparency, PeerJ operates a system of 'optional signed reviews and history'. This takes two forms: (1) peer reviewers are encouraged, but not required, to provide their names (if they do so, then their profile page records the articles they have reviewed), and (2) authors are given the option of reproducing their entire peer review history alongside their published article (in which case the complete peer review process is provided, including revisions, rebuttal letters and editor decision letters).

New to public reviews? Learn more about optional signed reviews and how to write a better rebuttal letter.


  • The initial submission of this article was received on May 6th, 2013 and was peer-reviewed by 1 reviewer and the Academic Editor.
  • The Academic Editor made their initial decision on June 4th, 2013.
  • The first revision was submitted on July 16th, 2013 and was reviewed by the Academic Editor.
  • The article was Accepted by the Academic Editor on July 18th, 2013.

Version 0.2 (accepted)

· · Academic Editor


Thanks to consider editor and referee suggestions. We'll remain waiting for new papers from yours.

Version 0.1 (original submission)

· · Academic Editor

Major Revisions

This paper deals with an interesting topic, and number of respondents is enough to be representative of the national adolescent behavior. Design of study is appropriate. It needs some amendments before to be accepted to be published in PeerJ.

Data used in this study is quite old (2006). Since then several social, economic and political changes have been occurred in Egypt. I suggest actualizing data to better reflect present social situation in Egypt I order to better understand situation of Egyptian adolescents. This opinion is supported by the fact that the authors used actualize references (i.e.: 2012, 2013), and therefore is quite difficult to accept present results obtained at so long time ago from the present time.


Introduction is too long. It must be shortened at least to 1 and half page. Last 4 lines after the declaration of aims (from “Study findings…” to the end) could be deleted and used in the discussion, avoiding repetitions.

Authors must state why the student response rate is 87%.
Authors also stated that this is a self-reported study. Did the authors some validation to be sure that the self-reported method is yields appropriate results? If authors use a validated methods, please, give appropriate reference.

Authors must declare in limitations of the study that this is a cross-sectional study, and then no relationships cause-effect can be done.

Reviewer 1 ·

Basic reporting

This paper is interesting since epidemiological data on individual and social correlates of physical violence in Egyptian adolescents is limited. The results highlight high prevalence rates of adolescent interpersonal violence in Egypt. High rates of depressive symptomatology and bully victimization along with their positive association with physical fighting suggest that interventions aimed at treating and preventing these problems may help mitigate the likelihood of adolescents engaging in violent behavior; involvement in appropriate physical activity in a safe environment may be beneficial as well.
The manuscript is well written and structured. The hypothesis and aims are also clearly stated. However, some minor modifications should be made.

Experimental design

No Comments

Validity of the findings

No Comments

Comments for the author

1. “40%” instead of “40 percent”; and “70%” instead of “70 percent”.
2. The manuscript would benefit is the authors could include page 3 of the introduction section, lines 1-4 and lines 7-11 in a “limitations and strengths” section.
1. The manuscript would benefit if the authors include a table detailing the information on the data variables created.
2. The manuscript would benefit if the authors detail “anxiety and signs of depression” as individual-level variables separately.
3. Please, remove “for Linux (”.
1. Page 1 of the “Results” section: “The mean age of the sample was 13.2 years old” instead of “The mean age of the sample was 13.2 years”.
2. Why the authors included “food insecurity” without discussing this variable?
3. Please, change “Table 3” for “Table 2”.
4. The manuscript would benefit including a table assessing males and females separately since females were less likely than males to be involved in physical fights.

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.